Post by: cleanair on 26/09/2019 17:38:06
Laws of physics may change across the universe
Quote
Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”
"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory,"
The findings may also imply the Universe is infinite.
Sources:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/research/are-natures-laws-really-universal/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056018/Laws-physics-change-depending-universe.html
The questions:
1) is it evident that the laws of physics can change in time?
2) what would the implications be if it were to be true?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/09/2019 18:01:18
We have already replaced Newtonian mechanics with relativity and continuum models with quantum mechanics. And now we can see bits of the universe like black holes and dark energy for which we have no adequate model. No big deal.
Whether the universe behaves consistently over time is actually a meaningless question - consistency is in the timescale of the beholder.
Post by: cleanair on 26/09/2019 19:24:52
We have already replaced Newtonian mechanics with relativity and continuum models with quantum mechanics. And now we can see bits of the universe like black holes and dark energy for which we have no adequate model. No big deal.
Whether the universe behaves consistently over time is actually a meaningless question - consistency is in the timescale of the beholder.
Thank you for the insight!
With regard to it being no big deal, my question was also related to potential societal implications, and for 'thinking' in general.
Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been? What would the true implications be of for example the idea that the Universe is infinite?
The Big Bang theory was invented by catholic priest Georges Lemaître from Belgium for "a day without a yesterday". Lemaître was a personal friend of Albert Einstein.
Albert Einstein initially criticized the theory but ultimately yielded to his friend's theory and helped to promote it. He called his own theory for the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder" while recent evidence has proven it to be correct.
Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right
Source: https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html
Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:
Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’
Quote
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.
Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019
Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible
Quote
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.
Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Indirectly, the idea that the Universe has a limited size and originates from a accidentally exploded primordial atom may be at the basis of profound ideas such as the idea that the human mind originates from accidental chemistry in the brains or that evolution is driven by random chance.
When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/09/2019 21:47:44
Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been?
Maybe you should find some actually evidence for that conspiracy first.
Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:
Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’
Quote
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.
Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019 [nofollow]
Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible
Quote
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.
Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space [nofollow]
Firstly, Express is a sensationalist website. Everything there should be taken with a large grain of salt.
Secondly, there is no problem with that star's age. The uncertainty of its age is large enough to be consistent with the Big Bang. The black hole thing has also been addressed using a "direct collapse" model (as opposed to the idea that it formed from a collapsing star that then consumed matter to become larger).
When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?
Just as likely as they are now. Evolution is separate from the Big Bang. Evolution was already widely-accepted when the eternal, steady state model of the Universe was also accepted. Neither requires the other.
Post by: Zer0 on 26/09/2019 23:05:38
" Dense Super Hot Soup " vs " A Singularity Atom "
Can anyone provide a little clarity, Please!
The BB wasn't really an Xplosion, was it?
Post by: cleanair on 26/09/2019 23:26:47
Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been?
Maybe you should find some actually evidence for that conspiracy first.
It is intentionally assumptious in an attempt to discover what the motive of Albert Einstein might have been to do the following:
- formulate a theory for a infinite Universe that is proven accurate today
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and instead, help to promote the theory of a catholic priest that states that the Universe started in a "Cosmic Egg".
Course of events:
Quote
In 1929, Hubble published a paper in which he established that not only were galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, but that more-distant galaxies were also receding more quickly. That is, the universe was not static. It was expanding. This observation (and those preceding Hubble's paper) led Belgian priest Georges Lemaître to propose in 1931 that the universe originated from a small and compact state, what he called a "Cosmic Egg" and what is now called the Big Bang.
With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.
Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.
Source: https://www.space.com/31055-removing-cosmological-constant-was-the-blunder.html
In general people may feel obligated to believe the story that has been presented to them but if there was something else that motivated Albert Einstein to make his choice, what could that have been? And might that still be relevant today?
Firstly, Express is a sensationalist website. Everything there should be taken with a large grain of salt.
Noted.
It was based on a published study.
Quote
The new study was published last month in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
https://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html
Secondly, there is no problem with that star's age. The uncertainty of its age is large enough to be consistent with the Big Bang.
That's not correct. The first stars presumably formed 200 million years after the Big Bang. At it's lowest uncertainty estimate it's still 100 million years to old and the second argument is that the star is just 200 light years away in the Milky Way.
There are more stars found that appear to be older than the Universe.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/07/the-greatest-cosmic-puzzle-astronomers-find-stars-that-appear-older-than-the-universe/
The black hole thing has also been addressed using a "direct collapse" model (as opposed to the idea that it formed from a collapsing star that then consumed matter to become larger).
That's backwards reasoning just to make the Big Bang plausible again. It isn't a theory that you would naturally use to explain the observed black hole.
When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?
Just as likely as they are now. Evolution is separate from the Big Bang. Evolution was already widely-accepted when the eternal, steady state model of the Universe was also accepted. Neither requires the other.
Darwin's ideas were proven wrong. As partially discussed in a different topic, there is evidence that evolution is also horizontal, on the basis of what is consumed. Evolution may not originate from random variation.
darwin-wrong.jpg (43.42 kB . 150x197 - viewed 4769 times)https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-darwin-wrong/
Quote
A journalist recounts the epic story of modern challenges to evolutionary dogma
While you may be correct that Darwin's theories were evolving around the time that the Big Bang theory was created, society was different at that time. Religions played an important role for societal stability.
The Big Bang theory would have served Darwin's tree of life story, a story with an origin while simultaneously providing a creation story for religions. It may have been intended as a lie for the better.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/09/2019 02:31:33
- formulate a theory for a infinite Universe that is proven accurate today
When was it proven that the Universe is infinite?
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and instead, choose the theory of a catholic priest that states that the Universe started in a "Cosmic Egg".
Because of the evidence.
In general people may feel obligated to believe the story that has been presented to them but if there was something else that motivated Albert Einstein to make his choice, what could that have been?
You could speculate endlessly about anyone having ulterior motives for doing anything at all.
That's not correct. The first stars presumably formed 200 million years after the Big Bang. At it's lowest uncertainty estimate it's still 100 million years to old and the second argument is that the star is just 200 light years away in the Milky Way.
This Nature articles puts a lower limit on the star's age at 13.2 billion years old, which is 500 million years after the Big Bang: https://www.nature.com/news/nearby-star-is-almost-as-old-as-the-universe-1.12196
There are more stars found that appear to be older than the Universe.
And that same article offers possible explanations: "Now, it's always possible that there's something fishy that happened in the star's past that we can't know about today. It's possible that it was born as a higher-mass star and something stripped the outer layers off, reducing the star's lifetime precipitously. It's possible that the star absorbed some material later-in-life that changed its heavy element content, skewing our perceptions today. Or it's possible that we've got a misunderstanding in the subgiant phase of the stellar evolution of these old, low-metallicity stars. These unknowns (and in some cases, unknowables) are possible sources of errors when we try and compute the ages of the oldest stars."
So it's hardly a refutation of the Big Bang theory.
That's backwards reasoning just to make the Big Bang plausible again. It isn't a theory that you would naturally use to explain the observed black hole.
If the math works then it works: https://www.livescience.com/65857-direct-collapse-black-holes-proved-theoretically.html
Darwin's ideas were proven wrong.
Only some of them.
It may have been intended as a lie for the better.
There are an awful lot of things that "may" be true.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/09/2019 10:13:21
With regard to it being no big deal, my question was also related to potential societal implications, and for 'thinking' in general.Society as we know it, and rational thought, will probably not last the next thousand years. I think it unlikely that the last remaining rational being will have noticed any change in the laws of physics before the mob beat him to death for apostacy.
Post by: cleanair on 27/09/2019 13:09:53
- formulate a theory for a infinite Universe that is proven accurate today
When was it proven that the Universe is infinite?
Recent studies have shown that Albert Einstein's original theory is correct. That may implicate that the Universe is infinite. Without a beginning, there cannot be a end. Thus logically, there cannot be a limited size.
Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang
Quote
But it’s interesting to note that creation myths across cultures tell the opposite story. Traditions of Chinese, Indian, pre-Colombian, and African cultures, as well as the biblical book of Genesis, all describe (clearly in allegorical terms) a distinct beginning to the universe—whether it’s the “creation in six days” of Genesis or the “Cosmic Egg” of the ancient Indian text the Rig Veda.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/03/07/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang/
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and instead, choose the theory of a catholic priest that states that the Universe started in a "Cosmic Egg".
Because of the evidence.
That is the official story, but is it plausible?
Quote
Why Einstein was wrong about being wrong
The only explanation that made sense: Einstein's "greatest blunder" was actually one of his greatest predictions. There really is a mysterious antigravity force. Einstein's only mistake was in rejecting it.
https://phys.org/news/2011-10-einstein-wrong.html
You could speculate endlessly about anyone having ulterior motives for doing anything at all.
I decided to post the question to see if it would lead to answers, which could include a quick disproving of plausibility so that I would need to change my perspective.
I find it hard to believe that Albert Einstein accidentally made a mistake that he called his "biggest blunder" while recent studies are claiming that his biggest mistake was to call his theory a mistake. Also, to believe in a Cosmic Egg story is one thing, but to promote it as a scientist who created a later to be found correct contradicting theory, is another. It is not that easy to give up an idea as a scientist. It is a life's work. It is not plausible that a scientist all of the sudden tosses his work away and invests considerable time to promote a contradicting theory.
The reason for the question in this topic: if there were a motive, might it still be relevant today? There may be value in the answer, to improve the quest for truth in the future or maybe to protect or improve societal interests.
If a creation story was chosen for societal interests, why do people in general need such a story? Are there alternatives while maintaining an accurate search for truth?
There are an awful lot of things that "may" be true.
I am just looking for answers. I posted the question with in mind that it would quickly be proven implausible, but for now the question remains open with a potential outcome that could show that Albert Einstein may have intentionally promoted the Big Bang theory for interests other than the search for truth.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/09/2019 11:48:53
If a creation story was chosen for societal interests, why do people in general need such a story? Are there alternatives while maintaining an accurate search for truth?Nobody needs it. It is however interesting to see what happens to your model of the universe if you push t towards zero.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 12:45:02
Only if they have a calendar to tell them what they should currently be.
To me, that seems unlikely
Post by: evan_au on 28/09/2019 13:38:29
Quote from: cleanair
It is not plausible that a scientist [Einstein] all of the sudden tosses his work away and invests considerable time to promote a contradicting theory.When you apply the fundamental mathematical operation of "Integration", there is a "starting point" which must be accounted for, which is normally described as "+constant".
For example: If you drop an iron ball (initially stationary), and let it accelerate under g=9.8m/s2 for 2 seconds, what is its final altitude?
- Integration can tell you how far it has fallen in 2 seconds
- But you don't know from this question if it started from 100m or 200m altitude.
- But you need some reference in order to set this constant properly.
- You could (for example) use the initial altitude to set the "+constant".
In producing the theory of Relativity, Einstein also ended up with a "+constant".
- He fell in with the general view of physicists at the time that the universe "should be" eternal and unchanging, overall
- With no other reference value, Einstein set his "cosmological constant" to a specific value that would exactly cancel the tendency of the universe to expand or contract.
- Lemaitre proposed an alternative zero value for the cosmological constant that would allow the universe to expand from a specific starting point (and perhaps collapse back again, depending on the initial density). This may be because, as a Catholic priest, Lemaitre had been exposed to a different school of thought that expected a specific start to the universe (as per Genesis).
- It was later that Hubble showed by observations of galactic red shifts that the universe was actually expanding, and so there was a time when the universe was extremely compact. Einstein's specific value for the constant was wrong, and the true value was consistent with Lemaitre's views.
- At this point, Einstein realised that he had been fooled by the "common wisdom" in setting the cosmological constant with no specific reference, hence his "greatest mistake" comment.
- From this time, most astronomers assumed that this constant was zero
- Now, fast forward to the 1990s; Einstein is long dead. More detailed red shift measurements by Schmidt and others with much better telescopes allowed astronomers to deduce that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. With this new information, this suggests that the cosmological constant was not zero, but a small value that caused the expansion to accelerate once the density of the expanding universe dropped far enough.
So, Einstein didn't throw away his life's work!
- The General theory of Relativity was solid, and has been validated many different ways since then, in frame dragging, gravitational waves and black holes.
- What we are arguing about is how to set the cosmological constant.
- The existence of the cosmological constant is not in dispute - it comes straight out of the mathematics.
- As new evidence comes in, this means the cosmological constant should be set differently.
- This is the scientific method
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Quote
Recent studies have shown that Albert Einstein's original theory is correct. That may implicate that the Universe is infinite. Without a beginning, there cannot be a end.Ever since Eddington's 1919 demonstration of the bending of light by the Sun, physicists have been impressed with the accuracy of General Relativity.
- But Einstein's initial value for the cosmological constant was definitely wrong.
- At present, it looks like the universe could continue expanding forever, so it could be infinite
- Just because there is no foreseeable end does not imply that there was no beginning.
- This is the opposite of what you seem to be saying.
Like Schrodinger's equation, the challenge of Relativity is in the interpretation.
- Interpretation and application of these relatively simple equations has advanced significantly with the availability of supercomputers, allowing modelling of these equations in the silicon of the computer chips.
- It is true that Einstein did not fully understand the implications of his own theory.
- For example, at different times he had different ideas about the reality of black holes - he interpreted the infinities as a sign that his theory had broken down in these extreme conditions.
Post by: cleanair on 28/09/2019 14:39:20
I still wonder whether Albert Einstein truly believed that the value of the constant should be zero and thereby believed in a Cosmic Egg origin for the Universe. Was it really plausible for him to believe such merely based on early observations from Hubble?
A detail: Albert Einstein repeatedly misspelled the name of Edwin Hubble.
Quote
It’s interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet met Hubble in person? We don’t know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.
April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.
It appears to disprove the official story that Hubble's discovery forced Albert Einstein to admit that he made a mistake.
With regard to the Big Bang theory, some scientists are complaining that it's a religion.
Quote
1) The Monopole Problem
2) The Flatness Problem
3) The Horizon Problem
You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.
Source: Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?
I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.
There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.
There is obvious some sort of force at play that pushes the scientific establishment to hold on to the Big Bang theory.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/09/2019 14:44:54
The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.
*facepalm*
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 14:57:22
There is obvious some sort of force at play that pushes the scientific establishment to hold on to the Big Bang theory.It's called evidence.
Post by: cleanair on 28/09/2019 15:09:35
Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?
Only if they have a calendar to tell them what they should currently be.
To me, that seems unlikely
One of the authors of the study is professor Bob Carswell at the University of Cambridge.
Quote
Other researchers involved in the research are Professor Victor Flambaum and PhD student Matthew Bainbridge from the University of New South Wales, and Professor Bob Carswell at the University of Cambridge (UK).
Why do you believe that their research is likely to be invalid?
Post by: cleanair on 28/09/2019 15:12:10
It's called evidence.
How could it be explained that some scientists complain of a "religious practice"?
It is also visible in the defense for the study:
Quote
"we are here to test physics, not to assume it"
"The evidence for changing constants is piling up. We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,”
It was a final argument in a response to the head of the Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics who stated that "he didn't believe that the results were real". In essence it communicated the following: "there is a resistance based on belief while our research is reliable".
Post by: Zer0 on 28/09/2019 16:24:24
Subject:
Re: Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?
Personal viewpoint - Yes.
TY & plz carry on..." I'm luvin it "!
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 28/09/2019 18:59:14
Even if a parameter like the fine structure constant would change over space and time, it wouldn't mean the laws of physics change, it would mean that the laws we know are missing something. The laws we know change because we are still looking for better solutions and some unexpected experimental results. We know that the laws we know are not fundamental because they don't explain everything.
Post by: Razza on 30/09/2019 06:55:59
Post by: cleanair on 05/10/2019 23:22:35
Quote
29 April 2019: New evidence deepens a mystery around the Hubble constant, one of the most important numbers in cosmology.
New measurements show a big difference between early and late universe behaviour.
“This is not just two experiments disagreeing,” Riess explains.
“We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it.
“The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don’t agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we’re missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras.”
It may provide a clue that physics has changed over time.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/new-physics-required-universe-expanding-faster-than-predicted
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2091933-why-is-the-universe-expanding-9-per-cent-faster-than-we-thought/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/hubble-constant-universe-expanding-faster-than-all-expectations/
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-universe-faster.html
At the time that Edwin Hubble suggested the Doppler interpretation for the observed redshift there was another theory emerging called "tired light". It would have made Albert Einstein's original theory plausible at that time.
It may be an extra clue that Albert Einstein did not need to give up his theory due to early observations by Edwin Hubble.
The tired light theory was recently re-developed by scientists from Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory in China.
Quote
The cosmological model based on the tired light theory gets rid of the problems that are related to Big Bang, that is, the super velocity problem, the horizon effect, and the problem of the beginning of the Cosmos. Moreover, the model explains the cosmic microwave background radiation as a natural result of the tired light effect, and therefore, Olbers’ paradox is disappeared. Based on the tired light theory and together from the cosmological principle, the Cosmos is infinite and eternal.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/redefining-standard-model-cosmology/tired-light-denies-the-big-bang
Post by: cleanair on 10/10/2019 21:43:30
So, Einstein didn't throw away his life's work!
With regard to the described official history, I found some facts that contradict the facts that you shared.
Albert Einstein appeared to have actively tried to restore his cosmological constant for a infinite Universe.
Scientific papers that he published in 1931 at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin mysteriously disappeared. The papers were recently recovered in Jeruzalem.
In those papers he habitually misspells the name of Edwin Hubble as "Hubbel". Why?
Official history claims that Albert Einstein gave up his theory and that he was not a fan of it. That does not correspond with what appears from those documents.
Around the same time that Edwin Hubble proposed the Doppler interpretation for the observed redshift, another theory emerged called "tired light" theory which would have made the original theory of Albert Einstein plausible at that time.
Boriev, I. A. (Russian Academy of Sciences) stated the following in Journal of Physics in 2018:
Quote
Such red shift (and reduction of energy) may be simply explained by natural dissipation of energy of electromagnetic waves while they are propagating through the filled by DM space, which is real material medium. As clear, such dissipation must increase with increasing space distance, what logically explains the observed red shift increase with space distance. This materialistic explanation of observed red shift, known as concept of tired light, is natural and evidently true since it eliminates both obviously mysterious ideas about Universe inflation, induced by physically queer assumption of Big Bang, and about physically unexplained reason of dark energy.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/996/1/012017/pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPhCS.996a2014B
According to official history, Albert Einstein was forced to give up his theory due to the observations by Edwin Hubble. The existence of an alternative plausible theory to explain redshift could refute that.
It may be interesting to investigate why Albert Einstein's scientific papers mysteriously disappeared and why they were recovered in Jeruzalem.
With regard to the topic. In the case of the panpsychism theory everything in the Universe is conscious. It could mean that it evolves with intelligence that reaches beyond anything that existed in the past, i.e. not based on per-existing variables or as a function of time.
Panpsychism
Quote
This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.
Philosophers at NYU, home to one of the leading philosophy-of-mind departments, have made panpsychism a feature of serious study. There have been several credible academic books on the subject in recent years, and popular articles taking panpsychism seriously.
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility/
If past physics serves a purpose for a conscious Universe that could explain an observed consistency (in the fraction of time that humans have been observing) while in it's essence the observed consistency is merely constant by the purpose that it serves.
In a infinite Universe it would be logical that nature is a perceived state in time that can change over time. The theory for a conscious Universe would add to the validity of the idea that it is logical that nature can change over time.
A clue for an infinite Universe may be found in Albert Einstein's spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement.
If quantum entanglement is valid, then a pair of entangled particles can exist billions of light-years apart from one another and actions affecting the properties of one particle will affect the properties of the other particle instantly.
Infinity may provide an explanation for 'instant' connectivity across the galaxy. Infinity has no beginning and thereby knows no distance.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/10/2019 02:08:26
Post by: cleanair on 11/10/2019 10:09:18
Newton envisaged strings for gravity, which was replaced by einsteins relativity, which in turn looks like being outpaced by string theory or something else . We have come so far ! I think really the question is what constitutes a law and what is an approximation without fully understanding the mechanism or discovering it.
The modern scientific practice or status quo appears to be based on a belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.
Panpsychism theory, if valid (as an example of a mainstream development), may impose that such an idea cannot be valid.
If nature changes in time, how would science continue in the best way?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/10/2019 10:44:26
The modern scientific practice or status quo appears to be based on a belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.Exactly the opposite of the truth.
Engineering is based on the assumption that consistent observation is a sufficient guide to the future. It usually works, but is entirely pragmatic.
Science is the business of retesting hypotheses or refining data to explore anomalies. The sun usually rises in the east, but when it doesn't, we'll try to find out why.
Simply repeating an action in the hope of getting a different outcome was Einstein's definition of insanity, and is a characteristic of most religions.
Quote
If nature changes in time, how would science continue in the best way?By continuing to use the scientific process. It is inherently a successive approximation algorithm, which is what we use to pursue any target whose trajectory is unpredictable.
Post by: Hayseed on 11/10/2019 11:43:03
Man's hubris is man's intellect.
Post by: cleanair on 11/10/2019 20:01:41
The modern scientific practice or status quo appears to be based on a belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.Exactly the opposite of the truth.
How would one explain the synthetic biology revolution (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76832.0)? Would it not require a scientific status quo that accepts that science can be a valid guiding principle for evolution (for top down control of nature)?
A quote from The Economist:
Quote
Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
The report reveals an outlook on "well defined standard parts" to synthesize nature. How would such an idea be possible? It is evidence that the general status quo of science that logically would be required to make such practices acceptable is based on a belief in uniformitarianism.
Engineering is based on the assumption that consistent observation is a sufficient guide to the future. It usually works, but is entirely pragmatic.
Humans have been observing for only a tiny fraction of time. Some essential processes in evolution or nature may span thousands or even millions of years.
The question is whether it would be valid to use science as a guiding principle for human progress, i.e. to blindly follow the scientific method.
My concerns are:
1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.
2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.
Science is the business of retesting hypotheses or refining data to explore anomalies. The sun usually rises in the east, but when it doesn't, we'll try to find out why.
Simply repeating an action in the hope of getting a different outcome was Einstein's definition of insanity, and is a characteristic of most religions.
Philosophy or thinking could walk upfront, beyond what is known, using imagination. It could help make science more efficient. Instead of relying on past science with as logical effect dogma's (observations are considered hard truths that cannot be denied), it could test hundreds of dogma's in theory while it will remain open to continuous testing or challenging of past assumptions using methods that are continuously developed or enhanced.
The scientific method is an example of a product of philosophy. It was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.
Philosophy could help prevent the requirement of brute force attempts to get results.
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 11/10/2019 20:44:04
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2019 21:04:17
Philosophy could help prevent the requirement of brute force attempts to get results.
How?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/10/2019 22:56:50
How would one explain the synthetic biology revolution? Would it not require a scientific status quo that accepts that science can be a valid guiding principle for evolution (for top down control of nature)?Drivel. Evolution is a natural process of mutation and selection. It has no principle or purpose. What you call "synthetic biology" is engineering towards a specific goal. Science is a process, not a principle.
Quote
1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.No, the outcome of science is knowledge. The fact that it is based on what we have observed is what philosophers call an amazing insight, but what the man in the street calls a statement of the bleeding obvious, because you can't formulate a scientific hypothesis until you have observed something. A hypothesis based on non-observation is called a dogma.
Quote
2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.It was never a principle. It is difficult to see how the process of observe, hypothesise, test, could be "invalidated", any more than you could invalidate the process of baking a cake - you would need a very idiosyncratic definition of validity to do so.
Quote
The scientific method is an example of a product of philosophy. It was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.Or Galileo, or Confucius, or Alhazen, or Roger Bacon (no relation). Or whoever built Stonehenge. Nothing to do with philosophy whatever.
Post by: cleanair on 11/10/2019 23:20:49
Philosophy without science and observations is worthless. To predict the future, we can only look into the past. Sorry!
Science is essentially invented by philosophy.
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/BEYOND_GOOD_AND_EVIL_.aspx?S=7) (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
Quote
The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
According to him, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).
Recent developments (the evidence that nature may change in time) may show that such a belief is not justified.
Post by: cleanair on 11/10/2019 23:21:38
How?
By inventing methods such as the scientific method.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/10/2019 23:54:33
By inventing methods such as the scientific method.
But if you think the scientific method isn't good enough, then what do you propose to replace it?
Post by: cleanair on 11/10/2019 23:58:28
Science is a process, not a principle.
The conviction that it can or should operate autonomously is a principle. The idea that science can and should top down control the evolution of plants and animals is a principle when used for a synthetic biology revolution.
Quote1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.No, the outcome of science is knowledge.
On what basis can be stated that knowledge remains valid over time? Is the meaning that is derived out of it not dependent on a historical context, despite any belief whether that meaning will persist in the future?
The evidence that the laws of physics may change over time could suggest that observations may not remain valid over time.
Quote2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.It was never a principle. It is difficult to see how the process of observe, hypothesise, test, could be "invalidated", any more than you could invalidate the process of baking a cake - you would need a very idiosyncratic definition of validity to do so.
Observing, testing, hypothesizing are "actions" that need to have taken place. The outcome of such is history. Knowledge thereby resides in a historical context.
QuoteThe scientific method is an example of a product of philosophy. It was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.Or Galileo, or Confucius, or Alhazen, or Roger Bacon (no relation). Or whoever built Stonehenge. Nothing to do with philosophy whatever.
...
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.
Discovery of utility or learning is not the same as science when following your description of a process that can be compared with the rules of a game or the instructions on a shampoo bottle, as a distinguishing factor.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/10/2019 00:02:45
Some even go further and presume to tell scientists that we believe in certain axioms, although the essence of science is unbelief.
The intellectually toxic combination of arrogance and ignorance is known as the Kruger-Dunning syndrome. Fortunately it is not infectious, but it can have fatal consequences.
Anyway, I think this discussion is simply leading you into ever more bizarre misuses of English, so I'll walk away, but leave you with the simple statement that the laws of physics may well have changed with time (if there was a Big Bang) or perhaps not (if there wasn't). Either way, the consequence is what we see around us.
Post by: cleanair on 12/10/2019 00:23:12
By inventing methods such as the scientific method.
But if you think the scientific method isn't good enough, then what do you propose to replace it?
I merely started the topic to ask a question, I am not a scientist. I didn't want to suggest that science should change. I cannot judge such. My arguments should be considered in the context of the topic.
With regard to the synthetic biology revolution (already at 400 billion USD revenue or 2% of GDP in the US). The Economist described it as a unguided practice. It appears (for now, as the question has remained unanswered) that it is primarily driven by market (money).
How is that possible? And could science be an optimal guiding principle for evolution (top down control of nature)?
The evidence that shows that nature may change in time could provide a clue that the fundamental idea's behind the synthetic biology revolution may not be valid.
So thereby my motivation for this topic (discovery of insights for another topic), besides that the subject by itself is interesting.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 00:28:07
Does a photon somehow "know" that- because it's today's photon (rather than one from a "billion years" ago)- it should do something different?
That question gets more challenging when you recognise relativity. The Billion years isn't the same for you as it is for me.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/10/2019 00:40:41
Quote
Observing, testing, hypothesizing are "actions" that need to have taken place. The outcome of such is history. Knowledge thereby resides in a historical context.Tautology. Anything not based on observation is called "guesswork" or "lies".
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 00:47:10
I am not a scientist.It shows.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/10/2019 00:49:38
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how all the "things" in the Universe have a meaningful calendar.The problem we have is some evidence consistent with a Big Bang. Unfortunately the laws of physics that we have, don't work for t < 0. This suggests that the observable universe has a starting point, and as stuff changes from day to day, means of measuring elapsed time. Not sure what more you could need to make a consecutive Julian calendar.
It's also conceivable that the observable part of the universe is part of a cyclic whole, which would be the basis of a repetitive calendar.
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 12/10/2019 01:20:22
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 12/10/2019 01:35:53
Post by: cleanair on 12/10/2019 11:48:43
I look forward to an explanation of the historical context in which rain isn't wet.
It is about the meaning that is derived from that observation. Besides the fact that rain by itself does not need to be considered wet, when it affects the human world, it can be perceived as causing wetness and as such be referenced as wet.
The observation makes it possible to consider that rain is wet and that it is a hard truth.
At question is whether such observations can be a guiding principle for human progress, for example as a fundament for a synthetic biology revolution.
The idea that rain causes wetness is based on a observation, an actionable event of the past with a result that is documented and accepted in the human realism.
It may be that when nature would change, that rain does not cause wetness in the same way that previously has been observed.
If science would be used as a guiding principle by itself, there would be a potential flaw that could have disastrous consequences. It could cause unwanted attempts to stubbornly hold on to the idea of how rain should cause wetness, by creating dogma's (e.g. Dark Matter, Dark Energy and upon the discovery that the Hubble constant isn't constant, the suggestion for Dark Radiation) or by trying to change the physics of rain to meet that of how it was observed in the past, considering the new nature of rain to be a symptom of a disease.
How would science react to change of what it assumes to be hard truths that are used for fundamental concepts which may be part of a trillion dollar science endeavor (the synthetic biology revolution, while in it's infancy, is already at 400 billion USD per year in revenue or 2% of US GDP).
If nature would change in time, how would science continue in the best way?
Post by: cleanair on 12/10/2019 11:49:40
QuoteObserving, testing, hypothesizing are "actions" that need to have taken place. The outcome of such is history. Knowledge thereby resides in a historical context.Tautology. Anything not based on observation is called "guesswork" or "lies".
What about imagination?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/10/2019 14:23:52
Post by: yor_on on 13/10/2019 07:33:34
=
Thinking of it again you should note what your first link state about 'c' " Above I mentioned that alpha is made up of three other constants: α = e2/hc where c is the speed of light, e is the charge of an electron and h is Planck’s constant. Both laymen and scientists alike always ask whether we have any idea whether it’sc, e or h that varies. This frequently asked question has a subtle and often misunderstood answer. But it’s interesting, so read on!
In fact, one can never experimentally distinguish between a varying c or e because these quantities are always measured in some arbitrary units like meters, kilograms, seconds etc. Consider measuring the time it takes light to travel between you and me on Monday and then again on Tuesday. Imagine that the two answers were different. What does this tell you? You might conclude that the speed of light, c, has changed between Monday and Tuesday or, equally well, you could conclude that time has slowed/accelerated or that your measuring rods (i.e. meter rules) have changed length. These three conclusions are all equally valid and can not be distinguished by an experiment! But alpha is special because it is a dimensionless combination of other constants: alpha is just a number, i.e. no units! We can therefore measure changes in alpha unambiguously.
Some confusion has arisen recently in the literature about this question. The problem is that there exist well defined theories called “Varying Speed of Light” (VSL) and “Varying Electric Charge” (VEC) theories. For example, in VSL theories, it is indeed the speed of light that is considered to vary. But this is just a mathematical convenience: one could easily convert any VSL theory into a VEC theory! The only reason one chooses to label one particular theory a VSL or VEC theory is because that theory might look simpler (mathematically and intuitively) when considering a varying c or e. Essentially, the confusion is that the (arbitrary) names given to these theories mask their inherent duality (or triality if you include h!). "
What is mind boggling here is that 'c' is a local constant, not a 'global'. We still use it as a 'global' as there is no locally defined and measured experiment I know of proving it otherwise. Wherever you are you will find 'c' locally, as defined from a uniformly moving platform (Earth f.ex). If you now use this and then reread your links I think relativity still holds.
Post by: cleanair on 14/10/2019 22:32:23
That was some interesting links cleanair. When it comes to Einstein I really doubt he would have let society decide how he thought.
It is remarkable that at the time, there was an alternative theory for redshift (tired light theory) that according to some scientists, is the most plausible theory today [1] (https://www.intechopen.com/books/redefining-standard-model-cosmology/tired-light-denies-the-big-bang) [2] (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/996/1/012017/pdf). I would expect that Albert Einstein's intuition could have predicted it if it would ultimately be proven to be an accurate theory.
The official story (in magazines) is that Albert Einstein was not a fan of his theory and was forced to admit that he made a mistake due to observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The existence of an alternative theory for explaining redshift combined with the recently recovered papers that show that he actively tried to restore his theory (and in which he habitually misspelled the name of Edwin Hubble as Hubbel in 1931) could refute that.
Albert Einstein helped to promote the Big Bang theory which is a fact to consider.
As a laymen my question was merely: if there was a good intend, what could that have been? Why could a "creation" story be essential for society and if a lie for the better was chosen, what alternatives could there be in the case of a infinite Universe?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/10/2019 22:55:54
Post by: HelpMe929 on 25/10/2019 11:50:41
Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?
Only if they have a calendar to tell them what they should currently be.
To me, that seems unlikely
Using that argument then space must have a speedometer, otherwise how would know if its accelerating or not?
It seems pretty unlikely that laws of physics don't change over time, Entropy would see to that. I mean, honestly, how can chaos be lawful? You either have a descent into chaos or you dont. What's so special about stupid old energy that only it should suffer entropy, why shouldn't laws be affected too? Maybe I should be asking a clown this question....?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/10/2019 23:58:22
It seems pretty unlikely that laws of physics don't change over time, Entropy would see to that.
Entropy doesn't affect the laws of physics because it is a by-product of the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics, in particular.
Quote
I mean, honestly, how can chaos be lawful? You either have a descent into chaos or you dont.
Depends on how you define "chaos" and "lawful". The way in which chaos is defined in terms of entropy requires no change in the laws of physics over time.
Quote
What's so special about stupid old energy that only it should suffer entropy, why shouldn't laws be affected too?
Because entropy is defined in terms of energy specifically.
Post by: yor_on on 27/10/2019 20:02:37
=
and before you comment, he did try to find other ways himself, but failed. That was his fifth dimension that he hoped would unify gravity with those other 'forces' we define. He didn't succeed man.
Post by: cleanair on 27/10/2019 22:33:56
I am merely looking at the facts as a outsider. There are papers submitted to the University in Berlin that mysteriously went missing and that in 2013 were re-discovered in Jeruzalem. The papers show that Albert Einstein actively tried to restore his original theory and habitually called Edwin Hubble "Hubbel" (in 1931, 2 years after Hubble's discoveries).
Some scientists today state that tired light theory for explaining redshift is most likely correct. As a outsider I cannot judge it, but the theory was available at the time of Edwin Hubble's discoveries so when considering that Albert Einstein actively tried to restore his original theory, the fact that the tired light theory was available at that time and may be considered the valid theory today, could imply that Albert Einstein could have had reasonable ground to pursue his original theory at that time. At least it cannot be said that he was forced to admit that he was wrong due to early discoveries by Edwin Hubble.
Getting Einstein to Say "I Was Wrong"
Quote
However, Nussbaumer argues, Einstein was not as impressed with Hubble as common lore holds. Einstein, from his interactions with other physicists, already superficially knew most of what Hubble was saying about the redshift of distant galaxies, and his meeting with the astronomer added nothing really new. Plus, the idea of redshift was so new, no one was sure that's what they were seeing.
... (years later)
In putting it together [the paper that went missing] he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/11/getting-einstein-to-say-i-was-wrong.html
I merely wonder: if there was a motive, what could it have been? My first idea is that it could have been a good intention, e.g. social stability. In that case there would be other questions: why would a Big Bang theory or creation story be essential for social stability? And what alternative could there be that would be compatible with an accurate search for truth?
With regard to the topic: if it is proven that the laws of physics change in time, what would it imply for humanity? The Big Bang theory and thus a creation story could be at question. The history that shows that Albert Einstein may have made a choice that deviated from truth, may indicate that there is a value at stake.
What would the implications be, for humanity etc., if the laws of nature change in time?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2019 23:04:33
The underlying hypothesis is that photons lose energy by collision with space dust over zillions of years. If this were the case, we would see a broadening of spectral lines from all distant sources, since some photons will have interacted with more or less dust than others in transit. Sadly, what we see is usually a red shift with no broadening, and occasionally a blue shift (for which TL has no explanation), again with no broadening.
What we observe in controlled experiments, to a remarkable degree of precision, is doppler and gravitational shifts "exactly as Einstein predicted". Indeed the predictions are so precise that we trust our lives to them every time we get into an airliner. "We" of course excludes flat-earthers who are scared of falling off the edge, but it does include creationists who, knowing that the earth and everything in it was created in perfect form in 4004 BC, know that it is perfectly safe to fly since airliners have been around for over 6000 years and all that crap about the Wright Brothers is misinformation put about by atheists and devil-worshippers.
Meanwhile, back on the subject, the effect on "humanity etc" (as if humanity was the important bit of the universe!) of a change in the laws of physics would be to pique the interest of physicists and scare the bejasus out of everyone else. Depending, of course, on the nature, sign and magnitude of the change.
Post by: cleanair on 28/10/2019 10:26:54
The problem with "tired light" is that it doesn't stand up to any experimental test.
There appears to be recent evidence that the tired light theory for explaining redshift is correct. The theory is referenced as "new tired light", possibly a modified version of the theory.
FRB 150418 Confirms Predictions Made by New Tired Light
Quote
For the first time, in April 2015, both the Dispersion Measure (DM) of a fast radio burst, FRB 150418, and the redshift of the host galaxy were measured. This gave the opportunity to test the New Tired Light Theory and its predictions. DM in mainstream physics is found from the time delay between the arrival of different frequencies from a short, sharp cosmological source (FRB or pulsar). DM is related to the mean free electron density along the path, n, and the distance from source to observer, d, by the formula DM=nd. New Tired Light (NTL) is an alternative cosmological theory to the Big Bang.
...
In 2015 a fast radio burst was observed and for the first time we had the redshift of the host galaxy. This enabled the mean electron number density to be determined as 0.5 m^-3 exactly as predicted by New Tired Light theory. New Tired Light provides a mechanism by which redshifts can happen and using standard Physics we can now pick any galaxy and calculate its redshift from first principles and get it right!
We see that there is no need for expansion as it is simple optics.
http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0380
I have no knowledge about physics and cannot judge whether the Doppler interpretation or the tired light theory are most plausible for explaining redshift.
I noticed however that scientists mention that tired light theory is probably the correct theory in publications from the past years. As a outsider I therefor can consider it as a potential valid theory and it is then to be considered that the theory was available at the time that Albert Einstein was presumably forced to admit that he was wrong due to observations made by Edwin Hubble.
If the tired light theory is proven to be correct, is it likely that Albert Einstein wouldn't have predicted it? The papers that show that he actively tried to restore his theory for a static Universe in 1931 may provide a clue that he intended to follow a research path in which tired light theory would have found a part.
Boriev, I. A. (Russian Academy of Sciences) in Journal of Physics in 2018:
Quote
Such red shift (and reduction of energy) may be simply explained by natural dissipation of energy of electromagnetic waves while they are propagating through the filled by DM space, which is real material medium. As clear, such dissipation must increase with increasing space distance, what logically explains the observed red shift increase with space distance. This materialistic explanation of observed red shift, known as concept of tired light, is natural and evidently true since it eliminates both obviously mysterious ideas about Universe inflation, induced by physically queer assumption of Big Bang, and about physically unexplained reason of dark energy.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/996/1/012017/pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPhCS.996a2014B
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2019 17:09:51
Post by: cleanair on 28/10/2019 19:05:48
But it doesn't explain blue shift.
I cannot provide a scientific argument (I joined the forum to ask a question) but I found the following expert answer:
There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies that have been observed. The blue-shifted galaxies are in our own local group and are all bound to each other by gravity. Most are dwarf galaxies.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/observational-astronomy/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/539-why-are-there-blue-shifted-galaxies-intermediate
It raises the following questions:
1) considering that blue shifted galaxies are all in the 'local group' of the solar system within the Milky Way and appear to apply to a specific category of galaxies within that group, wouldn't that imply that the observed blue shift effect is likely tied to a specific type of galaxies in a nearby condition?
2) why would scientists who are expert on the matter claim that tired light theory is the valid theory to explain red shift? They don't mention anything about blue shift in the articles that I found (including a publication in Journal of Physics, 2018).
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2019 23:37:42
Post by: cleanair on 29/10/2019 11:48:57
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lyndon_Ashmore
https://independent.academia.edu/LyndonAshmore
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_E_Ashmore
As an outsider I simply ask the question: why wouldn't those experts mention blue shift in their articles? It appears that they find blue shift negligible.
Combined with the information that blue shift has only been observed in 100 galaxies that are tied to the solar system by gravity, and only for a specific type of galaxies (dwarf galaxies), it gives rise to the idea that blue shift may not be an argument to consider the Doppler interpretation of redshift to be logically true.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2019 12:03:12
Everything is tied to everything else by gravity unless it is moving away from the barycentre at a greater rate than the escape speed.
Nothing in physics is "negligible" - our understanding advances through the exploration of anomalies. It's one of the first tests of a hypothesis.
So back to the second test: are the shifted lines also broadened to the extent predicted by the hypothetical shift mechanism?
Post by: cleanair on 31/10/2019 12:45:11
So back to the second test: are the shifted lines also broadened to the extent predicted by the hypothetical shift mechanism?
I cannot answer the question but it would be interesting to learn the perspective from an expert on New Tired Light theory.
Why would experts that suggest tired light theory as explanation for red shift not mention anything about blue shift? Why would they not feel obligated to address blue shift in their proposal for "New Tired Light" theory?
According to Google, the following article contains 3 references to the word "blue". Most other articles about "tired light" contain not a single reference to the word blue. The ones that do are often related to NUV-blue.
On the Interpretation of Spectral Red-Shift in Astrophysics: A Survey of Red-Shift Mechanisms
Quote
As Einstein commented to Lemaître: “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable” (Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable) [16].
The de Sitter universe is based on imaginary fabrication of a repulsive force varying directly with distance[17]
What could explain such a lack of addressing of blue shift by experts?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/11/2019 16:27:06
The problem with tired light is that it doesn't predict blue shift at all.