Six questions for any GUT theorist

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Re: Six questions for any GUT theorist

Postby hyksos on May 6th, 2018, 1:10 pm 

Wetterich swaps out lengths by contracting matter and in both cases the ratios among the constants remain the same even though they may vary from frame to frame.

This is a factual lie. Wetterich is definitely NOT SUGGESTING a swapping out of lengths. There is absolutely completely and utterly NO CONTRACTION in Wetterich's theory. That's your theory, not his.

(Now for the 15th time . . .)

1. Wetterich's theory has at its core the idea that all particles are slowly and incrementally increasing in mass.
2. This would be a local change in the laws of physics.
3. Wetterich inserts a convenient stipulation that Big G is decreasing over time, thus no experiment in a local lab on earth would ever SEE the slow increase in mass.

Wetterich's theory says universe we inhabit has no spatial expansion. The redshift observed in distant galaxies is due to the fact that those galaxies emitted that light back in a time in which their particles were all very much "lighter" (/less massive) than they are now. Because of conservation-of-energy the light emitted from those charged particles must have less energy. Less energy equivocates to lower frequencies, and thus the light from those "less massive" particles is redder.

You don't have to take my word for it, at all. Trust nothing I post here. YOu can go find Wetterich's papers online. They will corroborate everything I have posted here.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Six questions for any GUT theorist

Postby bangstrom on May 7th, 2018, 5:46 am 

hyksos » May 6th, 2018, 12:10 pm wrote:
Wetterich swaps out lengths by contracting matter and in both cases the ratios among the constants remain the same even though they may vary from frame to frame.

This is a factual lie. Wetterich is definitely NOT SUGGESTING a swapping out of lengths. There is absolutely completely and utterly NO CONTRACTION in Wetterich's theory. That's your theory, not his.


This is your understanding of Wetterich’s theory… not mine. You said, “… absolutely completely and utterly NO CONTRACTION in Wetterich's theory.”
A non-expanding universe with no contraction of matter would appear as dimensionally static contrary to the observation that the universe is expanding. Simply stated, a universe that appears to be expanding must either be expanding spatially while the material within remains the same size or the universe remains the same size while the material within grows smaller. This is not to exclude the many possible combinations of the two.

Wetterich’s theory covers the latter possibility where the universe remains the same size while atoms grow smaller. This is not expansion but “inverse expansion” and the two are indistinguishable in the absence of any absolute scale for dimensions. We don’t have an external god’s eye view of the universe that can decide whether the universe is expanding or we are growing smaller.

hyksos » May 6th, 2018, 12:10 pm wrote: Trust nothing I post here. YOu can go find Wetterich's papers online. They will corroborate everything I have posted here.

I have a quote below from part 6 of Wetterich’s “Cosmology Christoff Weterich.”

“In a world with variable particle masses the universe does not need to expand. The observation of redshift for distant galaxies only tells us that the dimensionless ratio of galaxy distance divided by the size of atoms is increasing. For fixed particle masses, and therefore a fixed size of atoms, this necessitates an expansion of the intergalactic distances – the expanding universe. For increasing particle masses, and therefore a shrinking size of atoms, no geometrical expansion is needed.
http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~we ... .Cosmology
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Six questions for any GUT theorist

Postby hyksos on May 8th, 2018, 7:41 pm 

bangstrom. You quote-mined that article for your own nefarious purposes. Allow me to quote the entire section.

Nowhere anywhere in that article you have linked is any suggestion made or implied, that spatial expansion can be "replaced by" contraction of particles. It merely only passively says that atomic radii will be smaller. But the smaller radii is NOT pointed at as the causative factor in redshift! Rather the article completely corroborates what I already posted in this thread. The article says explicity : it is the increase in mass of the electrons that is the causative process behind redshift.


For increasing particle masses, and therefore a shrinking size of atoms, no geometrical expansion is needed. The intergalactic distances may even decrease, leading to the geometric picture of a shrinking universe. The observed redshift of distant galaxies is then simply explained by the fact that the electron mass was smaller in the past than at present, leading to an emission of light at smaller frequencies and therefore shifted towards the red.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Six questions for any GUT theorist

Postby hyksos on May 8th, 2018, 7:45 pm 

(cursory disclaimer. Wetterich's theory is at the boundaries of academia. The vast majority of working cosmologists do not subscribe to it. While my posts describe Wetterich's theory in its own terms , I am not promoting it as viable.)
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Previous

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests