Can two electrons exchange a photon at unlimited distances?
This paper examines what the universe would look like if there was a distance limit to the quantum electrodynamic absorption and emission of photons.
It uses Hubble's limit as the limit and the results are a very plausible alternate history of the universe.
http://monadpad.com/bigbang.pdf
I would like to propose an alternative model of the origin and evolution of the universe. It starts from the assumption that the universe is finite with a spacetime boundary. In the Big Bang model we implicitly assume the existence of a time boundary. The general theory of relativity introduces the concept of spacetime so that time and space do not have a separate independent existence. This implies the existence of a space boundary as well as a time boundary.
All that exists in the universe lies with this spacetime boundary so it makes no sense to talk about "before the beginning" or "outside of the space boundary". It is the expansion of space at the boundary which is the cause of the general expansion of space which is observed. Going back in time towards time zero in this model means that we are contracting towards a zero volume, zero energy universe which is more satisfactory than the hot big bang singularity which proposes higher and higher energy densities as you approach time zero.
In this expanding universe the total energy must remain at zero so that the change in spacetime curvature associated with the expansion of space must lead to matter formation. Another way of looking at this is to consider the Schwarzschild relationship between the amount of mass in a region and its radius: r = 2Gm/c2. As the universe expands there is a requirement for the formation of matter arising from the gravitational potential energy of space.
This matter formation appears from observations to have taken place when the universe was 378,000 years old since the cosmic microwave background radiation has a redshift of z = 1,100. In this model the CMBR is directly associated with matter formation. The process of galaxy formation is proposed as the initial formation of galactic black holes due to the release of tension in the fabric of spacetime. Then star formation follows as a result of the galactic black-hole formation. The material in the disk or sphere of the galaxy causes the motion of stars in the galaxies to be as observed. No dark matter. No dark energy.
This idea is explained a little more fully in:
Richard
Richard,
I may reply more fully later as I have myself being fooling around with this idea.
You said, "...Changes in spacetime curvature can lead to matter formation with the total energy of the universe remaining at zero".
One of my proposals is that the matter-energy content of the universe has been increasing with its radius. Since increase in radius translates to reducing spacetime curvature which you propose can lead to matter formation this appears to agree with my thinking.
You did not consider another guide to our cosmological beginnings which is thermodynamics. If the second law applies, then in the beginning entropy must be zero, which also agrees with your model's "in which energy density tends to zero as time tends to zero". In agreement with the third law, temperature too will be zero at time zero even if hot immediately thereafter.
Lastly, if you add an infinitesimal drop or fluctuation in energy to a system at absolute zero, i.e. T = 0, what could happen considering the thermodynamic equation dS = dE/T?
My calculation indicates an initial temperature 1032K in accord with the Big bang model and an increase in entropy to an equilibrium value which seems to tend towards infinity.
Akinbo
Hi Akinbo,
In the spacetime boundary model, spacetime is defined to exist within the boundary so the origin point of time zero, volume zero does not lie within the defined universe. We can talk about an evolution from any point within the spacetime boundary but at time zero, volume zero the rate of passage of time is stopped so that no event could occur.
Now the way we have to treat the concept of energy in this closed system of the universe is to consider a conservation law which includes mass, energy and spacetime curvature. The equations of general relativity equating mass energy distribution to spacetime curvature can be turned into a conservation law. The total of mass, energy and spacetime curvature must always equate to zero.
At a time before matter formation we have an expanding empty space due to the expansion at the boundary. Before matter formation we do not have any meaning to the concept of temperature or any forms of energy related to matter so we have an expanding universe where the only present energy form is the changing spacetime curvature due to the expansion at the boundary.
As described in the document The evolution of the universe this ultimately must lead to matter formation to balance the total energy equation. As I see it the laws of thermodynamics would only start to apply when matter exists within in the universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation was emitted during the matter formation era and has a redshift of z =1,100. This implies that the initial period during which there was no matter within the universe lasted approximately 378,000 years.
Can we apply the laws of thermodynamics to a galaxy formation era in which galaxies are formed directly from the stored energy of spacetime curvature? Before any galaxy formation event we would have zero entropy and zero energy and zero temperature. After the formation of a galaxy we can give meaning to the thermodynamic concepts of energy, entropy and temperature.
If we exclude energy components due to spacetime curvature from our energy definition for the purposes of thermodynamic calculations then the galaxy formation event would appear as a sudden jump in energy and an increase in entropy. The evolution of the universe from a thermodynamic perspective can be viewed as a continuing process of energy release from spacetime towards the formation of mass and energy with a corresponding increase in entropy.
Richard
Richard,
From your paper: "As the universe continued to expand the mass of each galaxy will then increase", "The implication of the spacetime boundary model of the universe is that there is a definite relationship between the volume of the universe and the mass contained within the universe. This relationship is modelled using the Schwartzchild Radius", "Taking the boundary of the universe to be at the Schwartzchild radius implies a linear relationship between the mass in the universe and the radius of the universe following the initial formation of galaxies"...
I cannot but agree with your model. You may want to view my humble contributions on this A and B. A "little voice" tells me we are right.
Akinbo
Akinbo,
Thank you for taking the time to look at my paper and comment. I had a look at your paper A to see the different approaches that arrived at a similar conclusion.
The main starting point for the spacetime boundary model has been an instinctive rejection of the finite with no boundary hypothesis underlying the big bang theory. How can a finite universe with an increasing volume have no space boundary? I have read all the explanations of this and none of them make sense to me.
So I adopted a finite plus spacetime boundary assumption to see where it leads. This first thing that this does is to invalidate the cosmological principle since a universe with a space boundary could not be spatially homogeneous and isotropic. This means that the Friedmann equations cannot be used as these equations assume that the universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic.
However, the advantage of the space boundary hypothesis is that it gives us an explanation for the expansion of space and also it allows the consideration of variation in spacetime curvature as a component of the total energy equation comprising mass energy and spacetime curvature. I do not think one could apply this approach to total energy conservation if the assumption is that the universe is finite with no boundary and spatially homogeneous and isotropic.
There is also a different perspective on the nature of mass and spacetime which fits well with the spacetime boundary model.
This can be found at:
Richard
I updated the paper on the unification of physics and its new address is:
Richard
Inflation, Dark matter and Dark energy has been added as a new section to the paper:
The section describes how these adaptations to the big bang model are treated in the Spacetime Boundary model.
Richard
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is explained in the context of the Spacetime Boundary model of the universe.
Also, given the existence of a spacetime boundary it brings with it the possibility of identifying the centre of the universe and the position of our galaxy in the universe.
Richard
Dear Friends,
Your authentic comments, and suggestions on my attemt titled: Seven possible alternative interpretations of the 'cosmological red shift' (Attached with this post)will be highly valuable for our arriving at correct understanding of the cosmos.
Hasmukh K. TankAttachment #1: 1403.0005v1.pdf_Seven_Possible_Alternative_Interpretations_of_Cosmological_Red_Shift.pdf
Most sensitive dark matter detector reaches critical phase. I'm predicting that high energy particles will be detected coming from dark matter annihilation at the center of the earth, other planets and sun as well as beyond.
Dark matter hunt: US LUX experiment reaches critical phase
Also, I'm predicting that astrophysical neutrinos are also created from dark matter annihilation in a similar way to cosmic radiation.
Exotic Space Particles Slam into Buried South Pole Detector
Cosmic rays themselves are a mystery. The most energetic among them are thought to originate in the same processes that spawn astrophysical neutrinos. Yet because cosmic rays (which, despite the name, are actually high-energy particles) are charged, they travel curved paths, shaped by magnetic fields, through the universe. As a result, they do not preserve information about where they came from. Studying neutrinos is a way to try to understand the origin of high-energy cosmic rays, which are somehow sped up to nearly light-speed in some sort of cosmic particle accelerator. Just how this happens is an open question that shows just how much we do not know about the most violent processes in the universe. "This is the biggest mystery of our century," says Toshihiro Fujii, a cosmic-ray researcher at the University of Chicago's Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics. Fujii was not involved in IceCube, but says its findings will aid his goal of understanding cosmic rays.
Israel Perez and Peter Jackson from Feb. 5, 2013
Yes. It's called the STOE.
The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) is a self-consistent model that was derived from considerations of galaxies and galaxy clusters. The STOE explains many mysterious phenomena from diverse observational disciplines. The STOE is simpler and more encompassing than other models. An important part of the STOE is to show the correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics. This allows the successes of the current models to be incorporated into the STOE while explaining problem observations.
The STOE posits spiral galaxies are sources and elliptical galaxies are sinks of our universe. The sources are continually injecting the constituents of our universe and sinks are continually ejecting the constituents of our universe. This explains the cooling flows and the differing observations between spiral and elliptical galaxies. The infall of matter in spiral galaxies is modeled as a cooling flow, also.
The simplest structure that can conceptually produce a wide range of differing observations is an interaction of two different types of entities. The simplest form of the small is light. Light in experiments suggests two types of behavior, particle-like and wave-like. Therefore, the STOE posits two components and their interaction produce differing structures, more complex objects, and the diverse behavior observed in our universe. One component that can produce wave-like behavior is a plenum named after Descartes' plenum. The plenum is infinitely divisible and ubiquitous. The density of the plenum produces a scalar potential $\rho$ field.
The particle-like component of our universe is called a hod. Hods cause a static warp in the $\rho$ field in accordance with the Newtonian spherical property. ``Static'' such as caused by a stationary electron in a stationary electromagnetic field because hods are neither a Source nor a Sink of energy. Hods merely modifies the $\rho$ field. Because the $\rho$ field near hods must attract other hods, the hods decrease the $\rho$ field. Only the divergence of the plenum density acts on only the surface of the hod. The Michelson-Morley experiment indicates the flow of the plenum has no effect on the hod perpendicular to its surface. The Michelson-Morley experiment is also why the Lorentz Ether Theory and gravitational ether developed. Therefore, the plenum is not a fluid. The limit of the speed of light implies the hod is two-dimensional because that presents a zero cross section in the direction of travel through the plenum. The minimum plenum density is zero. Therefore, the hod surface marks a discontinuity in the plenum of zero $\rho$.
The forces are applied by contact rather than action-at-a-distance. The forces are hod to plenum, plenum to plenum, and plenum to hod.
Supporting this conjecture is the observation that there are two types of physical energy, potential and kinetic. Hods cause potential energy. The plenum causes kinetic energy. The interaction is a third form of force in our universe that may be likened to ``spirit'', which is what Liebniz was attempting to show the "spirit's" existence.
The hods' influence on the plenum implies some plenum is ``bound'' to the hod and causes close hods to be bound to other hods. This structure is matter. The plenum content of matter causes the inertial characteristics. The hods cause the gravitational effects. The equality of potential energy and kinetic energy in matter results in the weak equivalence principle. The STOE speculates the amount of plenum bound to hods depends on the $\rho$ environment of the matter. The relative amount of plenum per hod determines the equivalence principle.
Matter or bodies are structures of hods and plenum. The divergence of the $\rho$ field on the surface of a hod then causes matter attraction according to established gravitational physics and causes the frequency change of electromagnetic signals.
The $\rho$ at a point in space is the heat equation solution for point sources, sinks, and matter in a three dimensional space.
My book (self published) describes the history and current STOE. My Chapter 14 of "Black Holes and Galaxy Formation", 2010, eds. A. D. Wachter and R. J. Propst, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (New York, USA) lists several speculations for future investigation.
I am an independent researcher and am the only one working on the STOE.
My next efforts are to examine QSOs and the interference pattern for single photons. If QSOs are as H. Arp ["Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science", Aperon, (Montreal, Canada)] suggests, then they should improve the redshift-Cepheid distance correlation according to the STOE.
A key to understanding the small is to understand light. The Fractal Principle suggests the understanding must be consistent with everyday world understanding. The wave-particle duality and Schrodinger's cat ideas fail the Fractal Principle. The STOE model of photon interference patterns produced good correlation to light observations. Its weakness was explaining experiments with one photon at a time in the experiment. The current calculation needed several photons at a time in the experiment even if only one passed through one of the slits at a time. Afshar et al. (2007) used a low intensity light such that only one photon at a time could be in the experiment. I think this is because the photon interacts with the mask and screen. Photons are obeying Bohm and the TIQM model of quantum mechanics. Because the plenum waves travel much faster than photons, The backward-in-time wave of TIQM may be the reflection of the induced plenum wave from the mask and screen.
Hodge
John,
Yes, and DFM; recursive quantum gauge theories. The EPR paradox is resolved classically (though those too close to Bells theorem can't see it yet) as my essay shows. The Gluck essay also gives an interesting fresh perspective of it.
I've just read Hasmukh Tank's essay and it is quite excellent and almost completely consistent. Not complete by any means but exploring new aspects. The initial model of discrete field dynamics we as well outlined in my 2011 essay 2020 vision, estimating that it WON'T be recognised until at least ~2020. It's on track!
My last 2 essays explore different angles. Essentially it's fractal yin yang helical wave/particle corropondese all the way down. It pulls together the amplituhedron, string theory dimensions, Feynman-Weinburg QG, Chaos theory, Godel n-value logic etc etc, though not so as any of the faithful disciples of each would immediately recognise it! Unification is just it's immediate effect.
Very well spotted. Here's hoping for some 2020 vision soon. Theoretical intellectual inertia is beyond my worse nightmares. So much for the Scientific Method of assessment. Physics seems more 'belief' based than religion!
Anyone who can see any new angles or links please do jump in.
Best wishes
Peter
Dynamic Dimensionality
Zeeya, Fellows, I write as a keen tenderfoot in your fascinating discussions,
Alternatively... imagine the nascent Universe which, at its point of inception, has zero dimensions. Next imagine an initial extremely rapid early expansion (inflation?) of that point universe (singularity), through a closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, into a Universe which fleetingly has integer-one spatial dimension. Now imagine that one dimensional universe seamlessly continuing to expand, but with decelerating expansion, through a second sequential closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, momentarily establishing a Universe which has integer-two spatial dimensions (surface of last scattering?). From that transient two dimensional state, imagine further continuous expansion of the Universe being realised through a third sequential closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, creating a Universe which has integer-three spatial dimensions.
Consider; might this have been how the current state of our universe emerged (unfurled) into its three spatial dimensions? For a visual metaphor, kindly reflect on the unfurling of a fern from a seed, through a growing sprout (koru), then revealing a frond surface, to become a fully formed space-filling plant? Applying Occams razor, is this imagined continuous progression of dynamic dimensionality (seamlessly from 0 to 1, to 2, to 3 spatial dimensions) not more physically and mathematically less complicated than a cataclysmic and instant short-cut leap from 0 to 3 spatial dimensions at the Big Bang (and why did it immediately settle at 3 dimensions)?
Consider further; might the closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, be what we perceive as the illusion of Time as it is counted or clocked between successive integer spatial dimensions? Perhaps our current Universe, which has three clearly revealed spatial dimensions, is continuing to undergo dynamic dimensional and cosmological co-expansion, with dimensional unfurling through Time (closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality) continuing towards four revealed spatial dimensions and beyond in the future?
Consider; might there be a reservoir of furled dimensionality which is revealing itself through unfurling from 0 dimensions at the point of inception, through 0 to 1, to 2, to the present 3 spatial dimensions and beyond in the future to 4, to 5, to 6, to 7, to 8, to say 9 or 10 spatial dimensions with late accelerating expansion? Perhaps such an unfurling reservoir of 9 or 10 furled dimensions is related to those multiple dimensions postulated in the foundations of String Theories?
Intriguingly; in such a Universe with fundamentally dynamic dimensionality, the furled equal factors of revealed space would represent the furled capacity constrained to a revealed scale. Such dimensional and cosmological co-expansion may thus be proportional to a very simple radical expression, where the radicand is the number of revealed dimensions and the index is the remainder of furled dimensions where total dimensionality is fixed. Interestingly, modelling with this simple radical expression, the ensuing extent of dimensional and cosmological co-expansion appears to exhibit characteristics of early inflation, intermediate decelerating expansion, nearly linear expansion and late accelerating expansion. For those interested in graphic numerical illustrations of this simple radical expression, kindly look at this short paper http://figshare.com/articles/Dimensional_and_Cosmological_Co_Expansion_through_Dynamic_Dimensionality/1036499
Hoping to get some scientific feedback and perhaps even develop joint author traction on these ideas with esteemed forum members...
Hi Angus,
This sounds like something I'd enjoy discussing with you, having considered similar approaches before. You might want to look up Rainbow Gravity, Quantum Einstein gravity, and CDT, to see what some other folks have done in this vein. I will follow up on this question, and your paper, after the essay contest rating period has ended.
All the Best,
Jonathan
The crisis in the fundamental physics, including cosmology - the "crisis of interpretation and representation" (T.Romanovskaya), the "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), it is the crisis of the philosophical foundations, especially in understanding of space and time.
The way to overcome the crisis - is a further deepening of the Geometry, but rather in the "origin of Geometry" (E.Husserl) and the dialectico - ontological unification of matter, search for the absolute foundations of physics and knowledge, the absolute generating structure. Necessary to consider limiting (absolute, unconditional) states of matter: absolute motion (rotation, "vortex", discretuum) + absolute rest (linear state, continuum)) + absolute wave ("figaro" of states = discretuum + continuum).
The geometrized basis, the triune Universum: "universum-sphere" + "universum-cube" + "universum-cylinder". Each limit (absolute, unconditional) state of its way - the absolute vector, the vector of the absolute state. This "triangle" of absolute states of matter - the ontological representation of the triune foundation - "origin of geometry", the beginning of physics, the beginning, framework and carcas of knowledge. This is what David Gross calls - "general framework structure" (D.Gross, an interview "Iz chego sostoit prostranstvo-vremya/What is in the space-time) the same for the QM and for GM. Today QM and GM are parametrical theories without ontologic justification.
Semantically poor picture of the world "In the beginning was the Big Bang" should be replaced with a picture of the world "In the beginning was the Logos (MetaLaw, the "law of laws")...", the base of which the "General framework structure" or the "Absolute generating (maternal) structure" . This is the «Cosmic Origin».
Should always be keep in mind the philosophical covenant of John Wheeler:
"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".
It would be nice if FQXi will hold the new contest of cosmological models: «Cosmic Origins». In the world today there is a lot of alternative views and models , other than «the classic big-bang model».
Carlo Rovelli made a good conclusion in the article SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS :
"This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its empirical content. Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is. Now, there's something disturbing, for me as a theoretical scientist, in all this. I feel that something is missing. Something of the story is missing. I've been asking to myself what is this thing missing? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I want to present some ideas on something else which science is.
This is particularly relevant today in science, and particularly in physics, because if I'm allowed to be polemical, in my field, in fundamental theoretical physics, it is 30 years that we fail. There hasn't been a major success in theoretical physics in the last few decades, after the standard model, somehow. Of course there are ideas. These ideas might turn out to be right. Loop quantum gravity might turn out to be right, or not. String theory might turn out to be right, or not. But we don't know, and for the moment, nature has not said yes in any sense.
I suspect that this might be in part because of the wrong ideas we have about science, and because methodologically we are doing something wrong, at least in theoretical physics, and perhaps also in other sciences."
So, in the search for primordial structure of the Cosmos (Universum). The first step: from science formulas to science forms.
Regards,
Vladimir Rogozhin
Hello,
I have no direct business with cosmology, but I have a deep interest in fractal geometry and have recently made discoveries about their properties that are seem to only point to and have direct business with QM and cosmology.
Yesterday I published my findings.
I heard Max Tegmark mention this forum and am hoping it is the right place to introduce different perspectives.
Blair
Abstract:
One of the great questions in modern cosmology today is what is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe. It has been recently discovered this property is not unique to the universe; trees also do it and trees are fractals. Do fractals offer insight to the accelerating expansion a property of the universe and more?
In this investigation the classical (Koch snowflake) fractal was inverted to model and record observations from within an iterating fractal set and at a static (measured) position. New triangles sizes were held constant allowing earlier triangles in the set to expand as the set iterated.
Velocities and accelerations were calculated for both the area of the total fractal, and the distance between points within the fractal set using classical kinematic equations. The inverted fractal was also tested for the Hubble's Law.
It was discovered that the area(s) expanded exponentially; and as a consequence, the distances between points - from any location within the set - receded away from the observer, at exponentially increasing velocities and accelerations. The model was consistent with the standard ΛCMB model of cosmology and demonstrated: a singularity Big Bang beginning, infinite beginnings; homogeneous isotropic expansion consistent with the CMB; an expansion rate capable of explaining the early inflation epoch; Hubble's Law - with a Hubble diagram and Hubble's constant; and accelerating expansion with a 'cosmological' constant. It was concluded that the universe behaves as a general fractal object. Thought the findings have obvious relevance to the study of cosmology, they may also give insight into: the recently discovered accelerating growth rate of trees; the empty quantum like nature of the atom; and possibly our perception value of events with the passage of time.
Blair,
It is interesting that you describe this as acceleration, when according to theory, it is deceleration from that initial expansion of the early universe. Now if it is actually an optical effect, compounding on itself, then your perception of an outward acceleration would be more valid. Also there would be no need for dark energy to explain why that deceleration flattened out, as it gets closer to our location.
Suffice to say, we are getting into crackpot territory here, if the thought police catch up to us.
Regards,
John M
