I don't think space is expanding.

[Ziggurat]

That formula is proposed to be a new law of physics.

And how does this new law of physics affect things other than cosmology?

It clearly violates relativity.

Yes, it does. And that's a problem for you.

An even bigger problem is that is violates inertia, a body in motion should remain in motion.

Remember me mentioning Noether's theorem? Well, if you discard conservation of momentum, then your theory can't have translational symmetry.

So how does that violation happen?

That just means physics needs innovation. Which we should assume is always true anyways.

Physicists do. But you seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. You're trying to solve one problem, but you're introducing 100 new ones. That's not a step forward.

 

[Mike Helland]

In other words, if relativity is based on world lines with a speed of light c, to accommodate my hypothesis the world lines would be a function of distance that contains Hubble's constant, c - H * D.

 

[Ziggurat]

My theory doesn't say anything about gravity.

It needs to, or it cannot account for cosmology. And that's the problem you claim you're trying to solve.

 

[Mike Helland]

And how does this new law of physics affect things other than cosmology?

Where redshifts are not observed, H * D = 0, so that domain doesn't change.

Remember me mentioning Noether's theorem? Well, if you discard conservation of momentum, then your theory can't have translational symmetry.

In my theory, the photon doesn't interact with anything.

It loses energy, so its speed changes, but its direction doesn't change.

Keep in mind, in QM, the momentum of a photon isn't calculated the same way as for classical objects.

In any case, I'm saying that Newton's laws of motion have a limited domain, at least for a photon, it doesn't remain in constant motion to infinity.

And I think that's more of the issue than any other incompatibility.

 

[Mike Helland]

It needs to, or it cannot account for cosmology. And that's the problem you claim you're trying to solve.

The problem is how to account for the observation of redshifts.

If gravity isn't causing the redshifts, it doesn't need to be in the explanation.

 

[Mike Helland]

All of cosmology (expansion, singularity, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, multiverse) as based on one assumption and one observation:

Assumption: light travels at c to infinity
Observation: light is redshifted after million of years

How to hold onto the assumption and explain the observation has lead to the elaborate and exotic conjectures that define the field of cosmology today.

The assumption is wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

In my theory, the photon doesn't interact with anything.

That doesn't matter. Noether's theorem applies to any possible theory of physics, regardless of how photons interact. If momentum is not conserved, then translation symmetry must be violated. There is no way around that. So how is it violated? Your theory has a glaring hole in it if you cannot say.

The problem is how to account for the observation of redshifts.

If gravity isn't causing the redshifts, it doesn't need to be in the explanation.

The problem?

No, that's a problem. It's not the only one. Gravity will affect cosmology, for reasons that should be obvious. If you cannot describe that effect, then your theory is obviously incomplete, and you have a new and unsolved problem. You are substituting one explanation you are unsatisfied with with another explanation that covers only a fraction of what the theory you were unsatisfied with covers.

Again, that's not a step forward. It's two steps back.

 

[Mike Helland]

That doesn't matter. Noether's theorem applies to any possible theory of physics, regardless of how photons interact.

"Noether's theorem dictates that the angular momentum of the system be conserved, as a consequence of its laws of motion"

Neother's theorem applies to Newton's laws of physics.

I'm saying that constant motion to infinity is impossible, placing Newton in a limited domain of applicability.

Anything based on Newton's laws therefore is limited to that domain as well.

This disagree with Newton. Anything based on that, yeah, that's gonna a problem too.

That includes Einstein and Noether.

 

[Mike Helland]

And this isn't just because I don't like the big bang.

I grew up believing it was true.

But today is different:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ng-too-fast-and-that-could-rewrite-cosmology/

"Different measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of space-time expansion, refuse to agree – meaning we may have to look beyond Einstein’s theories to explain the universe"

 

[Ziggurat]

"Noether's theorem dictates that the angular momentum of the system be conserved, as a consequence of its laws of motion"

Neother's theorem applies to Newton's laws of physics.

No, Mike. Noether's theorem applies to all physics, including quantum mechanics and general relativity.

"Different measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of space-time expansion, refuse to agree – meaning we may have to look beyond Einstein’s theories to explain the universe"

The 20th century saw two major revolutions in physics which upended Newtonian mechanics: relativity and quantum mechanics. Both of these proposed laws which were radically different from Newton's laws.

But here's the thing: in both cases, the limiting behavior of quantum mechanics and of relativity was still Newtonian. And that makes sense: Newtonian mechanics is accurate over a wide range of phenomenon. You have to get to areas where it was previously hard to test (the very small or the very fast) in order to find the discrepancies, but any successful theory which can explain those discrepancies must still be able to explain everything that Newtonian mechanics explained. So it must still look like Newtonian mechanics, in the limit of conditions where Newtonian mechanics previously worked.

And the same thing will be true with general relativity. It is an extremely well tested theory, over a very wide range of conditions. Anything that replaces it must resemble it under the conditions in which it has been successfully tested, because there's no other way to match the already successful predictions of general relativity except to closely resemble it.

But your theory... doesn't do that. Your theory doesn't turn into general relativity in any limit. Hell, you don't even know what your theory does.

That's never going to work.

 

[Mike Helland]

And the same thing will be true with general relativity. It is an extremely well tested theory, over a very wide range of conditions. Anything that replaces it must resemble it under the conditions in which it has been successfully tested, because there's no other way to match the already successful predictions of general relativity except to closely resemble it.

But your theory... doesn't do that. Your theory doesn't turn into general relativity in any limit. Hell, you don't even know what your theory does.

It does exactly that.

If every place in GR where there is a "c" gets replaced by "c - H * D", and H * D = 0 everywhere its been tested (Mercury's orbit is not affected by the Hubble flow), then everything still works.

QM, GR were big deals.

I'm saying the discovery of redshift is the same.

QM, GR, and Redshift all diverging from Newton.

If redshift was discovered in 1915 and GR published in 1929, the history of physics might be totally different.

Also, they stopped work on cosmology in the 30's to make weapons for the war. Hubble worked in a wind tunnel after he discovered the universe outside the Milky Way.

 

[Mike Helland]

Noether's theorem applies to all physics, including quantum mechanics and general relativity.

All physics where an object in motion continues at its current rate to infinity.

My theory breaks inertia fundamentally, and thus anything on it, when we're talking about hundreds of millions of light years.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Let's define the observable region as including any place light keep reach us.

Just beyond that, the Hubble Limit, light cannot reach us.

Seems like that would be pretty black, eh?

CMB is light that *has* reached us, so how would your proposal produce it?

 

[Mike Helland]

Let's define the observable region as including any place light keep reach us.
Just beyond that, the Hubble Limit, light cannot reach us.
Seems like that would be pretty black, eh?

CMB is light that *has* reached us,

True. And any light headed its way would disappear beyond the limit.

so how would your proposal produce it?

I don't have a quantitative answer.

Wikipedia says this:

"1930s – Cosmologist Erich Regener calculates that the non-thermal spectrum of cosmic rays in the galaxy has an effective temperature of 2.8 K"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmi...e_of_prediction,_discovery_and_interpretation

I guess I could look at his process, because he seemed to nail it.

 

[Mike Helland]

I found this paper:

Ein HimmelskSrper, der die zur Absorption der Ultrastrahlung notwendi-
ge Dimension hat (...) wird sich durch die Ultrastrahlung erw/irmen. Die
Erw/irmung wird proportional der zugestrahlten Ultrastrahlungsenergie
Su und der Oberflgche O sein. Er wird sich so lange erw/~rmen, bis
die emittierte Wgrmestrahlung, bei schwarzer Strahlung also = aT40,
ebensogro~ geworden ist. Es ergibt sich die E n d t e m p e r a t u r T = ¢/~-/~r.
Das gibt nach Einsetzung der Zahlenwerte 2.8 K. 1

Which translates to

A celestial body, which has the necessary to absorb the ultra-radiation
ge dimension (...) will be heated by the ultra-radiation. The
Warming is proportional to the radiated ultra-radiation energy
Su and the surface O be. He will warm up until
the emitted thermal radiation, for black radiation = aT40,
has become just as big. The result is the E n d t e m p e r a t u r T = ¢ / ~ - / ~ r.
After inserting the numerical values, this gives 2.8 K. 1

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Astrophys-Space-Sci-V227-p13-24(1995).pdf

page 3

 

[Reformed Offlian]

True. And any light headed its way would disappear beyond the limit.



I don't have a quantitative answer.

Wikipedia says this:

"1930s – Cosmologist Erich Regener calculates that the non-thermal spectrum of cosmic rays in the galaxy has an effective temperature of 2.8 K"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmi...e_of_prediction,_discovery_and_interpretation

I guess I could look at his process, because he seemed to nail it.

Nailed what? The temperature of cosmic rays? Those aren't the same thing as the CMB. Cosmic rays aren't a blackbody, either.

 

[Mike Helland]

Nailed what? The temperature of cosmic rays? Those aren't the same thing as the CMB. Cosmic rays aren't a blackbody, either.

"Similarly, the work by the likes of Regener and Nernst, although painstakingly close to the eventual interpretation of the blackbody radiation in 1965, was not developed in a time when questions of the large scale structure of the universe, or the early history of the dynamic universe were being problematized in the cosmological community"

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...51d7c276b77b6fe7d67d855aa51e49806ad79b89?p2df

It looks like the CMB was predicted by Regener, but being a German in the 1930's probably didn't help it's widespread recognition.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"Similarly, the work by the likes of Regener and Nernst, although painstakingly close to the eventual interpretation of the blackbody radiation in 1965, was not developed in a time when questions of the large scale structure of the universe, or the early history of the dynamic universe were being problematized in the cosmological community"

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...51d7c276b77b6fe7d67d855aa51e49806ad79b89?p2df

It looks like the CMB was predicted by Regener, but being a German in the 1930's probably didn't help it's widespread recognition.

An estimate of the temperature of space is not a prediction of the CMB.

 

[Mike Helland]

An estimate of the temperature of space is not a prediction of the CMB.

He is noting that the cosmic rays are in equilibrium with star light temperature:

"However, the density of energy produced by cosmic
rays, which is nearly equal to the density of light and
heat emitted by the fixed stars, is very interesting from
an astrophysical point of view. A celestial body with
the necessary dimensions to absorb the cosmic rays—in
case of a density of 1, a body with a diameter of several
meters (5 meters of water absorb 10 9 of the cosmic
rays)—will be heated by cosmic rays. The increase in
temperature will be proportional to the energy of ab-
sorbed cosmic rays (S U ) and the surface (O). The
temperature of the body will increase until the heat it
emits—in case of black body radiation σ ⋅ T 4 ⋅ O —
reaches the same value. We then obtain a final tem-
perature of T = 4 S U σ . Substituting numerical
values we obtain 2.8 K"

 

[Reformed Offlian]

He is noting that the cosmic rays are in equilibrium with star light temperature:

Exactly. Which is not the same thing as predicting the CMB.