• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

We're Shrinking (Sort Of)

Gord_in_Toronto

Penultimate Amazing
Gord_in_Toronto
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
25,661
An alternate view on the Expanding Universe.

Could the expanding Universe truly be a mirage?

It seems to be reasoning by analogy:
  • In the science of optics, for example, you can either describe light as a wave (as Huygens did) or as a ray (as Newton did), and under most experimental circumstances, the two descriptions make identical predictions.
  • In the science of quantum physics, where quantum operators act on quantum wavefunctions, you can either describe particles with a wavefunction that evolves and with unchanging quantum operators, or you can keep the particles unchanging and simply have the quantum operators evolve.
  • Or, as is often the case in Einstein’s relativity, you can imagine that two observers have clocks: one on the ground and one on a moving train. You can describe this equally well by two difference scenarios: having the ground be “at rest” and watching the train experience the effects of time dilation and length contraction as it’s in motion, or having the train be “at rest” and watching the observer on the ground experience time dilation and length contraction.
Click to expand...

But I can't see anything intrinsically wrong. :eye-poppi

Link to the original paper here (I only read the abstract):
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/acdb41
 
Betteridge's Law of Headlines...

Gord_in_Toronto said:
Could the expanding Universe truly be a mirage?
Click to expand...
... says the answer is "no".

It seems to be reasoning by analogy:
Click to expand...
Likely a doomed effort, then.

But I can't see anything intrinsically wrong. : eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Why would you expect to?

One implicitly wrong thing that I can see is the implication that this idea hasn't been thought of before, and hasn't been addressed already.

Link to the original paper here (I only read the abstract):
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/acdb41
Click to expand...
Your thread title makes claims not supported by the abstract of this paper.
 
Roger penrose has an interesting idea that one universes infinite expansion can be another universes initial starting point. I just checked, it's Conformal cyclic cosmology, there's a wiki.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
An alternate view on the Expanding Universe.

Could the expanding Universe truly be a mirage?
Click to expand...
I haven't read that article.

But I have looked at the original paper:
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Link to the original paper here (I only read the abstract):
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/acdb41
Click to expand...

I am not a physicist, so much of that paper flies over my head.

As best I can tell, however, Lombriser's paper uses coordinate transformations to show (for example) that these two ways of thinking about the evolution of an expanding universe are equivalent:
  • the usual way of thinking:
    • the universe is expanding
    • but the speed of light does not change over time,
    • and the masses of particles do not change over time,
    • and the laws of particle physics don't change over time,
    • and so on
  • an unusual way of thinking:
    • the universe is not expanding,
    • but the speed of light is changing over time,
    • and the masses of particles are changing over time,
    • and the laws of particle physics are changing over time in such a way as to compensate perfectly for those changes in the speed of light, masses of particles, and so on,
    • and so on
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I haven't read that article.

But I have looked at the original paper:


I am not a physicist, so much of that paper flies over my head.

As best I can tell, however, Lombriser's paper uses coordinate transformations to show (for example) that these two ways of thinking about the evolution of an expanding universe are equivalent:
  • the usual way of thinking:
    • the universe is expanding
    • but the speed of light does not change over time,
    • and the masses of particles do not change over time,
    • and the laws of particle physics don't change over time,
    • and so on
  • an unusual way of thinking:
    • the universe is not expanding,
    • but the speed of light is changing over time,
    • and the masses of particles are changing over time,
    • and the laws of particle physics are changing over time in such a way as to compensate perfectly for those changes in the speed of light, masses of particles, and so on,
    • and so on
Click to expand...

The problem is that wouldn't really change the duration of a supernovae, and important observed effect.
 
Me neither. The last time I checked, I was 1.5 cm shorter than I thought I was. But it could also have been the Mandela effect ...
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
I can't say I understand a fraction of that, but I do know I'm not as tall as I once was.
Click to expand...

Neither am I, I lost 3 inches in height in the last couple of years. But my pain (getting better), the X-rays, and other labs say it's lumbar compression fractures from osteoporosis secondary to prednisone I need for a severe autoimmune disease. I've failed all the alternatives to the prednisone though I am now on some serious* meds to counteract the osteoporosis.


*By serious I mean incredibly overpriced. :(


I now return you to your regular programming lest the mods think I'm purposefully trying to derail the thread.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Neither am I, I lost 3 inches in height in the last couple of years. But my pain (getting better), the X-rays, and other labs say it's lumbar compression fractures from osteoporosis secondary to prednisone I need for a severe autoimmune disease. I've failed all the alternatives to the prednisone though I am now on some serious* meds to counteract the osteoporosis.


*By serious I mean incredibly overpriced. :(


I now return you to your regular programming lest the mods think I'm purposefully trying to derail the thread.
Click to expand...

Continuing the derail. How are your Parathyroid glands? I was diagnosed with hyperparathyroidism leading to osteoporosis. My blood calcium levels were out of whack. I had two of the four parathyroid glands removed and my blood calcium is now normal.

(IANAMD) (YMMV)
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Continuing the derail. How are your Parathyroid glands? I was diagnosed with hyperparathyroidism leading to osteoporosis. My blood calcium levels were out of whack. I had two of the four parathyroid glands removed and my blood calcium is now normal.

(IANAMD) (YMMV)
Click to expand...

Weird, I have a normal blood calcium and the endocrinologist started me on Forteo which is a synthetic parathyroid hormone. That is the drug which is about $10K/month. Fortunately Medicare pays that including the copay which itself would be $2K/month. :mad::eek::mad: But definitely YMMV applies to everyone. All of my medical problems fall into the 'you are the only case of this we've ever seen' category.:(
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom