Cont: Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

[Mike Helland]

So you are correct that the observations of supernova time dilation do not prove the expansion of space, but theymatch it

That ain't true. LCDM matches it for a 12.8 billion year old universe.

That's famously wrong.

Again, time varying over time doesn't make sense

It makes total sense.

It's too boring for differential geometry. But that doesn't mean it's non-sensical.

Imagine all clocks getting faster. Not hard.

 

[Ziggurat]

It makes total sense.

No, it doesn't. It's delusional.

It's too boring for differential geometry. But that doesn't mean it's non-sensical.

It's nonsensical because it doesn't make any sense at all.

Imagine all clocks getting faster.

Compared to what?

Not hard.

It's not hard to imagine, but it's still delusional. Because you're actually imagining all clocks EXCEPT some hidden "true" clock running faster, and being able to compare all these clocks to some "true" clock, presumably by magic.

Seriously, how do you tell how fast a clock runs? You can only ever tell how fast a clock runs by comparing it to another clock. If you compare it only to itself, it always runs at the same rate. It always runs at one second per second, by definition.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Again, time varying over time doesn't make sense

It makes total sense.

It's too boring for differential geometry. But that doesn't mean it's non-sensical.

Imagine all clocks getting faster. Not hard.

At this moment in history, the unit of time is 1 second, which is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" under specified conditions.

International Atomic Time (TAI) measures time using about 450 atomic clocks in laboratories spread over the world. Most of those clocks are cesium clocks whose measurement of time is based directly upon the definition of 1 second as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods" et cetera.

What would it take to imagine all those cesium "clocks getting faster"? Would it mean we'd have to imagine they lose the ability to count to 9,192,631,770? Would it mean the integer 9,192,631,770 somehow becomes equal to 9,192,631,769? Would it mean the relevant standards organization changes the definition of 1 second?

The last of those possibilities is the only one that's not hard to imagine. Indeed, a redefinition of the second is expected within the next decade. That redefinition is motivated in part by the fact that modern optical clocks are two orders of magnitude more stable than cesium clocks. Cesium clocks are already stable to within one second per 300 million years. The optical clocks that will replace them are stable to within one second per 30 billion years.

That redefinition of 1 second isn't going to make it any easier to imagine clocks are getting faster.

When Mike Helland imagines clocks to be "getting faster" or getting slower (he has argued both, but has often been confused concerning which he is arguing), what he is imagining is that all physical processes (such as the transition between two hyperfine levels of a cesium atom) are getting faster or slowing down. As explained above, those physical processes cannot be getting faster or slowing down with respect to the standard definition of 1 second, so what could Mike Helland imagine he is imagining?

Well, I'll answer that for you: Mike Helland is imagining a world in which Helland physics is right, and everyone else is wrong.

But that world is pretty hard to imagine, because Mike Helland continues to provide evidence that Helland physics is wrong.

 

[Mike Helland]

Compared to what?

Past clocks.

We use Type Ia supernovae for the purpose. And Cepheid variable stars. And even light itself (ala the expected frequency).

The "distance ladder" it basically just ways of comparing old clock rates to new clock rates.

 

[Mike Helland]

What would it take to imagine all those cesium "clocks getting faster"?

Time becoming faster means clocks speed up, and so does everything else, falling objects, chemical processes, nuclear decay, etc.

An observer would measure the same physical constants at any epoch.

 

[Mike Helland]

An observer at the event horizon of the black hole at the center of our galaxy will reach its center in about a minute.

Yeah, but on who's clock? An observer distant to the black hole, right?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As is usual when discussing relativistic time, Mike Helland gets it completely wrong.

An observer at the event horizon of the black hole at the center of our galaxy will reach its center in about a minute.

Yeah, but on who's clock? An observer distant to the black hole, right?

Wrong.

 

[Mike Helland]

As is usual when discussing relativistic time, Mike Helland gets it completely wrong.


Wrong.

Well, it doesn't seem you addressed the situation then.

Consider an observer near a black hole. Not at the event horizon, but a close orbit around it. Say it's there for a billion years, according to a distant observer.

When the observers met up again, is the universe the same age for both of them?

In my metric, if H evolves as it does in LCDM, at some point (c-Hd) < 0. I'm not sure what that means in the metric, if the sign of the time coefficient changes, which it would at the angular diameter turnaround. If I were to hazard a guess, mostly for our mutual amusement in how wrong it is, this is akin to what they're talking about where time becomes spacelike in a black hole.

 

[Ziggurat]

Past clocks.

And how do you do that?

We use Type Ia supernovae for the purpose.

Except you aren't really comparing your present clocks to past clocks. You're comparing your present clocks to a signal from a past clock. The distinction matters, because things can happen to the signal separate from what happens to the clock itself.

We've been through this before. Your idea of what happens to a signal if time speeds up is simply wrong. An increasing clock doesn't stretch a signal in space.

 

[Ziggurat]

Consider an observer near a black hole. Not at the event horizon, but a close orbit around it. Say it's there for a billion years, according to a distant observer.

When the observers met up again, is the universe the same age for both of them?

Wait... do you mean are the observers still the same age? No, no they are not.

They share the same universe, and they will both agree on the age of the universe.

Gravitational time dilation is a case where time varies with space, which makes sense. That doesn't mean time varying with time makes sense. It doesn't.

 

[Mike Helland]

Except you aren't really comparing your present clocks to past clocks. You're comparing your present clocks to a signal from a past clock. The distinction matters, because things can happen to the signal separate from what happens to the clock itself.

We've been through this before. Your idea of what happens to a signal if time speeds up is simply wrong. An increasing clock doesn't stretch a signal in space.

That's the point. It doesn't. That's what makes this work.

The signal has to represent the past clock rate.

In the expanding universe, and in tired light theories, the light starts out with the same wavelength, frequency, and energy as we would expect in a present day laboratory. As it travels, it's wavelength increases, and frequency and energy decrease.

My interpretation is altogether different. According to our clock, that light always had the same frequency and energy, it's emitted and observed with the same energy. No energy is ever lost in my model.

If we were around back when it was emitted, sure the frequency and energy would be measured as higher, but that's because the clocks ran slower.

As the clock rates increased, new light is measurably more energetic than old light.

The light at z=1 is traveling at c/2. It is emitted with the same frequency and same energy as it's observed at, based on the present day clock rate. It gains speed and reaches us at c. The frequency hasn't changed, but the velocity has. That can only mean a larger wavelength.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's the point. It doesn't. That's what makes this work.

No. That's what makes it fail. You can't redshift a photon without increasing its wavelength, but you can't increase its wavelength without stretching it in space.

The signal has to represent the past clock rate.

It can represent whatever it wants to, it's not the same thing. Ordinary Doppler shift should make that clear.

As the clock rates increased, new light is measurably more energetic than old light.

Tell me, Mike, how is the meter defined? It's defined by a fixed number of wavelengths of light from a specified atomic transition.

If that atomic transition is getting more and more energetic over time, then the meter is getting shorter and shorter over time. Which means that the measured distance between objects keeps getting bigger over time too.

Congratulations, you've rediscovered expanding space, but with extra steps.

 

[Mike Helland]

No. That's what makes it fail. You can't redshift a photon without increasing its wavelength, but you can't increase its wavelength without stretching it in space.



It can represent whatever it wants to, it's not the same thing. Ordinary Doppler shift should make that clear.



Tell me, Mike, how is the meter defined? It's defined by a fixed number of wavelengths of light from a specified atomic transition.

If that atomic transition is getting more and more energetic over time, then the meter is getting shorter and shorter over time. Which means that the measured distance between objects keeps getting bigger over time too.

Congratulations, you've rediscovered expanding space, but with extra steps.

Suppose a clock at z=0, with clock rate of 1 and speed of light c.

Clock ticks 1 second. 1 second has passed on the clock. Light has traveled 1 light second.

There is a clock at z=1, with a clock rate 1/2 and speed of light c/2, by comparison.

For each second that passes on our clock, only 1/2 second passes on the z=1 clock. And light has traveled 1/2 a light second.

So if the clock rate is 1/(1+z) and the speed of light is c/(1+z), a light second is still a light second. A meter should be still be a meter.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is a clock at z=1, with a clock rate 1/2 and speed of light c/2, by comparison.

Wow. That's even dumber than I expected. If you're scaling the speed of light AND your clock by the same factor, then all you've actually done is scale your coordinate system. That has ZERO physical consequences. That scenario doesn't produce a red shift.

You have no idea what you're doing.

 

[Mike Helland]

Wow. That's even dumber than I expected. If you're scaling the speed of light AND your clock by the same factor, then all you've actually done is scale your coordinate system. That has ZERO physical consequences. That scenario doesn't produce a red shift.

You have no idea what you're doing.

Changing the speed that time passes does have collateral effects.

If time moves slower, then light moves slower. Objects fall slower. Atoms decay slower.

Is that the first time you've thought of that? I guess that could be my fault.

But an increasing wavelength over time is definitely redshift.

 

[Ziggurat]

Changing the speed that time passes does have collateral effects.

Oh, I'm well aware.

The problem is that the effects that you have described are identical to expanding space. You haven't actually made an alternative theory. You've just relabeled standard theory without realizing it, because you don't understand any of what you're doing.

 

[Mike Helland]

Oh, I'm well aware.

The problem is that the effects that you have described are identical to expanding space. You haven't actually made an alternative theory. You've just relabeled standard theory without realizing it, because you don't understand any of what you're doing.

Except distances don't change.

But otherwise, that's 100% the point.

Given a past light cone (which is all we have access to), there's no difference between expanding space or shrinking time. The only difference is the worldlines that intersect the cone. The cone is otherwise identical.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except distances don't change.

Yes they do. You conceded they do when you said that light speed changes too. Again, are you not aware of how distance is defined?

 

[Mike Helland]

Yes they do. You conceded they do when you said that light speed changes too. Again, are you not aware of how distance is defined?

How far light travels during some time.

 

[Puppycow]

Seems a bit obvious to me, albeit with the benefit of a helping hand from people much smarter than myself.

It’s top-heavy IMF. Why not? The stars in the early universe were not the same size as the stars we see today.