a-cosmology-group/acg#39

Of course there are bangs. Every star is from some cloud, and every cloud is from some explosion or crunch. That is the dynamic of the universe, but explosions are local. No beginning, no expansion for the whole universe. We can suppose that, and then make a theory that is better. If it is not better then it is not better, but must try.

The solution is so simple. The universe is eternal, but the local part- universes begin. Think of this thoroughly.

The local is those galaxies that are from the same beginning as our Milky Way. And there is other local universes too. It does not matter if the beginnings are bangs or something else. A smoke anyway.

For our brains it is difficult to understand “all”, “everything”, “everywhere”, “always”, but in the universe there are such things, and they are not absolutes, “all” makes them not absolutes.

The universe, the whole universe is eternal, and the space of the whole universe is static. But our local universe is dynamic. Bangs and smokes and forming of stars, and bangs again. Eternally, locally.

So simple, to make difference between the whole and the parts, when you understand this, but so impossible to understand for people and cosmologists and everybody. In science we must make a theory and prove it, otherwise all this thinking is of no use. I admit that.

Explosions must be much bigger than supernovas, if there are local beginnings.

If initially there were only scattered particles that prevailed everywhere then it is not the case of explosions. In such a case, more likely is the case of condensation. And for the initial phase, that was very slow condensation.

Rather than an “expanding universe”, it is actually a “condensing universe”.

For example today’s clusters are condensing to form bigger galaxies. In earlier times, smaller galaxies were formed by condensing the smaller clusters of that time.

My estimate is that in the current universe that we see, 4-5 or even more major cluster mergers already have taken place at observable universe scale. Future galaxies are going to be even larger with greater in-between distances. That is what I mean by “condensing universe”.

Rationally best philosophical theory is eternal and boundless universe. Space is immensely big, boundless, and has no outside, everything is there. Matter is galaxies and forces. Galaxies move as they move, and are in equilibrium. Time is eternal. No more space coming, no more matter. Time is what is coming more, and everything is relative.

The whole universe, the observable universe and the local part- universe are all existing and are different things, not the same thing. The whole universe is much bigger than the observable universe. The theory of the whole universe is different as the theory of the local universe. Both are made by studying the observable universe and by making these two theories. BB is rationally wrong and impossible, not a theory of the whole universe as it should be.

So, philosophy is most important and physics comes next and mathematics is only a tool, and language in physics, not in philosophy.

@OlliSant Are space and time fundamental — philosophically? Are they axiomatic in this ontology?

Space and time (movement) and matter are the concepts (and objective things in the reality) what we need. Or we must invent better concepts for the things in the reality. And they are relative to each others in the universe. But in the case of the universe everything is different as in every other things. People always forget that universe is universe. It is somehow eternal and infinite, otherwise it is not universe but a smaller and different thing. Eternity might be fundamental, absolute, but space definitely is not, and time is what is coming more, not space, not matter. In the case of the universe. Part- universes, parallel part- universes and observable universe are different things. Only one whole, total, eternal universe.

Our conception of space and time, it seems to me, are derived from a uniquely human perspective; I mean specific to the scale of our detectors, brains included. In the past, large shifts in philosophy have been correlated to escaping the narrow human experience: Thales, Anaximander, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, to name the usual suspects. I trust that disentangling space and time from our human view will be no exception and allow a richer way to contemplate the world. I consider it precarious to found philosophies on human-specific perceptions.

OlliSant writes: philosophy is better than physics to study the universe. HanDeBruijn says: mathematics is better than philosophy to study the universe.

@marmetl knows: physics is better than mathematics to study the universe.

… “is better than” is a non transitive relationship 😄

We’re on the same page there Louis!

Galileo Galilei: The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.

God and mathematics are human inventions designed to deal with the real and the imaginary. They both offer counsel, but they are not the only available tools. We read the laws of nature as if they were written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics. But it’s just a language, not nature itself.

Only physics is specifically designed to study nature, and this can be done without god and without mathematics.

The above states absolutes and I do not believe in absolutes. That only physics is specifically designed to study nature is contested. When observations and statistics are available, we can get into the ballpark in a fraction of the time and from there get some idea of the physics. This is the ongoing debate between engineers and physicists, and we are never going to find common ground on it.

Do you contest the scientific method? (It’s an absolute!)

Two concerns about your first sentence:

1. God has been discovered by humans, not invented.
2. Mathematics has been discovered by humans, not invented.

Originally so. You are right in that both concepts have been distorted later on. But then our task must be to get rid of those distortions. Which is not going to be accomplished by throwing away the child with the bathwater.

About your Criteria for a Scientific Model article. I find that it is incomplete. We as humans do not only observe nature, we also modify it, namely by our technology. As is confirmed by quantum mechanics, there is no sharp distinction between observation and disturbance / our making of reality. As RichardRavenhall writes: This is the ongoing debate [read: different practice] between engineers and physicists. So the subtitle of your article could be augmented as: The measuring device and human technology as physical concepts. Classical (undistorted) thermodynamics is an exellent example of how to build a good physics theory with technological concepts. Read about the Carnot cycle (French physicist!) and the famous efficiency formula of Carnot’s theorem. Quote: the Carnot engine should be thought as the theoretical limit of macroscopic scale heat engines rather than a practical device that could ever be built. This has been a guideline for my own theoretical work: not to find an exact description of the phenomenon (which is virtually impossible) but instead a useful theoretical limit. It is often sufficient for an engineer to know that reality cannot be worse than theory (as quoted from Ideal Internal Flow, about thermal stress in an apparatus). There are more examples of this approach on my website.

Per Wikipedia, the scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge. I agree with this definition and have no problem with its application. My issue relates to the goal and how to get there. We are looking for some idea of what’s really going on and can advance towards this without full knowledge of it. Why not go part way first and then use this information to look for more knowledge later? Why make it a problem with 4 or 6 unknowns when it can be started with an approximate solution of only 2 unknowns?

Why make it a problem with 4 or 6 unknowns when it can be started with an approximate solution of only 2 unknowns?

Agreed! Let’s start with one of the main problems in cosmology, with only one “unknown” involved. The picture is from a video by Eric Lerner at exactly one hour (1:00:00) from the start: The Big Bang Never Happened–The Science of the Censored Papers.

Let $H=$ Hubble parameter, $G=$ Gravitational constant, $\rho_0=$ (mean) mass density here and now (at time and place of observer), then we have a couple of proposals. The first one is (theoretically) valid or not in our Atomic (time)frame:

$$ H = \sqrt{\chi G \rho_0} \quad \mbox{with} \quad \chi = 8\pi \times \begin{cases} 1/8 & (: \mbox{OI}) \ 1/6 & (: \mbox{Mach}) \ 1/3 & (: \Lambda\mbox{CDM}) \ 0.3883945571 & (: \mbox{UAC}) \end{cases} $$

Where OI, Mach, ΛCDM, UAC denote different cosmological models, a very much limited set studied by me.

Two other possibilities come with our Orbital (time)frame. Let $T_0=$ synchronization timestamp, $A=$ timestamp of our (smooth / violent) beginning. Then we have:

$$ H = \begin{cases} 1/(T_0-A) & (: \Lambda\mbox{CDM}) \ 2/(T_0-A) & (: \mbox{UAC}) \end{cases} $$

Galileo Galilei said: The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics. Does someone notice why this statement is contradictory to my writeups? (Hint: emphasis on technology)

No response. Okay, last hint. The synchronization $t_0=T_0$ of the two clocks, by the hand of who it is done?

@HanDeBruijn

I find that it {Criteria for a Scientific Model article} is incomplete.

It was not meant to be complete $-$ completeness is not really possible as our metaphysics evolves with time.

We as humans do not only observe nature, we also modify it, namely by our technology.

Our technology does not modify the laws of nature.

@HanDeBruijn In addition to your proposals

$$ H = \sqrt{\chi G \rho_0} \quad \mbox{with} \quad \chi = 8\pi \times \begin{cases} 1/8 & (: \mbox{OI}) \ 1/6 & (: \mbox{Mach}) \ 1/3 & (: \Lambda\mbox{CDM}) \ 0.3883945571 & (: \mbox{UAC}) \end{cases} $$

and

$$ H = \begin{cases} 1/(T_0-A) & (: \Lambda\mbox{CDM}) \ 2/(T_0-A) & (: \mbox{UAC}) \end{cases} $$

there is also, based on a simplified calculation using the quantum theory of ponderomotive scattering,

$$ H_0 = \zeta \ \frac{\alpha h^2}{m_e^2 c} \ n_e \mbox{\hspace{10pt} (: STz)}$$

expressed as a function of fundamental constants involved in electromagnetic interactions with electrons, where $\zeta \approx 0.6$ is a geometrical factor describing the light distribution that produces the Stimulated Transfer Redshift (STz), and $n_e \approx 0.3 \mbox{ electron/m}^3$ is the average number-density of free electrons in the observation path.

(Of interest to @sahil5d: comparing this equation with the general-relativistic versions given above, one gets a relationship between atomic constants and the gravitational constant that looks like the Large Numbers Coincidence, but you need to rewrite it by including the fine structure constant $\alpha$ which is often explicit in a quantum theory of light like photon Hubbling.)

@marmetl @sahil5d @PatrGT . I know that Patrick G. Tonin has subscribed too but can’t find his nickname here. Anyway. Let LHS be the left hand side and RHS be the right hand side in Sahil’s Large Numbers Coincidence formula, then:

$$ \large \frac{1}{\mbox{LHS}} = \frac{1}{\mbox{RHS}} \hspace{1pt} \mbox{(Gupta)} = \frac{\alpha_G}{2} \hspace{1pt} \mbox{(Tonin)} $$

Here $\alpha_G$ is a dimensionless number in Patrick’s theory. It can be (re)written as desired:

$\alpha_G=$ ( Newton’s law ) / ( Coulomb’s law ) $\times$ ( Fine-structure constant )

Details as usual at my website: Physical dimensions .

@PatrGT is Patrick, this mention should reach him…

@marmetl : Couldn’t resist to check dimensions and calculate the value of $H_0$ with your formula.

$$ H_0 = \zeta \ \frac{\alpha h^2}{m_e^2 c} \ n_e \mbox{\hspace{10pt} (: STz)} $$

Check on physical dimensions correctness (with $1=$ dimensionless) is OK:

$$ 1/time = 1 \times \frac{1 \times (length^2\times mass/time)^2}{mass^2 \times length/time} \times 1/length^3 $$

alpha := 1/137.035999084;
h := 6.62607015*10^(-34);
c := 299792458;
m_e := 9.1093837*10^(-31);
zeta := 0.6;
n_e := 0.3;
H := zeta*(alpha*h^2)/(m_e^2*c)*n_e;
Mpc := 3.08567758*10^22;
H := H*Mpc/1000;

And the outcome is $H_0=71.\enclose{horizontalstrike}{53222672}\hspace{1pt} (km/s)/Mpc$ , which is in close agreement with most other values for the Hubble. But I kow that the formulas as presented by me are often used he other way around, namely to get an estimate for the age of the universe and for the mean mass density $\rho_0$ around us. So I’m wondering if the same is not the case for your formula as well: do you have independent sources for the geometrical factor $\zeta$ and for the average number-density $n_e$ of free electrons in the observation path?

@HanDeBruijn Dimensional analysis is the name of what you do when you “check dimensions”. Scientists learn that in kindergarden, so there is no need to explicitly show how the calculation is done. I have been doing this for 52 years and every scientist does it.

To the physicist, equations have a physical meaning [dimension]. The equation above

$$ H_0 = \zeta \frac{\alpha h^2}{m_e^2 c} n_e \quad \mbox{is the product of} \quad \begin{cases} \delta_z = \zeta \frac{h\nu}{mc^2} & \mbox{the redshift per scattering events } [1], \ \sigma = \frac{\alpha h}{m_e \nu} & \mbox{the scattering cross section } [area], \ n_e & \mbox{the electron number-density } [1/length^3], \ c & \mbox{the speed of light } [length/time], \end{cases} $$

which gives inverse $[time]$ as the dimension of the Hubble constant.

When an article presents equations with incoherent units, it means that the author did not understand the physical meaning of the equation. Unless it’s an obvious typo, the article is probably meaningless.

Scientists also learn in kindergarden that the displayed digits of a number also have a physical meaning. The digits represent knowledge. In maths, in makes sense to write $\pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971…$ (I can’t remember the rest :smile:)

However in the physical sciences, the most accurate measurements rarely have an absolute accuracy below $1\times 10^{-6}$, and in cosmology numbers are presented on a $\log_{10}$-scale because most astronomical measurements give “order-of-magnitude” results. When engineers and mathematicians copy the output of their calculators to convey the result of their calculations 😮 it is a mistake that is just as bad as using incoherent [dimensions]. This shows that the author doesn’t understand the physical meaning of the numbers they give.

That being said, I gave the values of $\zeta$ and $n_e$ to one significant digit because they have no physical meaning below 10% uncertainty. The result $H_0 = 71.53222672$ km/s/Mpc is meaningless since even the best measurements of the Hubble constant by Riess have >1% uncertainties!

@HanDeBruijn The geometrical factor $\zeta$ is obtained from:

$$ \zeta = \frac{\int_0^\pi R(\Theta) \ \sin^2 \left( \frac{\theta}{2} \right) \ \rm d \Theta}{\int_0^\pi R(\Theta) \ \rm d \Theta} \approx 0.6174… $$

where

$$ R(\Theta) = \sin \frac{\Theta}{2} \ \sin \Theta \ \left[ 1 - \left( 1-\frac{2}{\pi} \right) \sin^2 \Theta \right] $$

Each term has a physical meaning (light interference, intensity gradient, momentum recoil, etc.) However, this equation is an approximation for isotropic and polarized light. A more precise calculation would have to consider that between galaxies, light is not perfectly isotropic and is usually not polarized (the $1-2/\pi$ term is the result of another integral over polarization states.)

So although the value of $\zeta$ is mathematically defined exactly by the model, it depends on conditions in space that are not well known. When the actual conditions found in space are considered in this calculation, the value should be near $\zeta = 0.6$.

The number-density of free electrons in the observation path is a measured quantity. The integrated value $\int n_e(r) dr$ along the path from source to us is obtained from Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) dispersion. Again, a constant $n_e$ is an approximation since the density varies as a function of position in space. Variations by a factor of two can be seen from one FRB to another. I analyzed 12 FRBs a few years ago using the Euclidean metric of a static cosmology and obtained an average $n_e = 0.25_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$, a value comparable to the published values obtained in the ΛCDM framework. There are now about 20(?) FRBs with a known redshift, but a new analysis would not reduce the uncertainty significantly.

To answer your question, the STz model has no adjustable parameter but depends on measurements of the light distribution along the observation path for $\zeta$ and the electron number-density $n_e$. It predicts a value for the Hubble constant $\log_{10}(h) = 1.8\pm 0.3$ consistent with observations (the dimensionless Hubble constant $h$ is defined from $H_0 = h \times 100 km/s/Mpc$).