Gauge Boson

The problem is that there is no plausible mechanism for this in your model. If the matter is shrinking, gravitational binding will have no (or little) effect. OTOH, General Relativity predicts that in an expanding universe, the space within a bound system is almost perfectly static, while it expands between these systems.

Kharakov

Nope, wrong. My hypothesis states that radiation emitted in the past has a longer wavelength.

Which simply shows that M31 is traveling towards us at a great enough speed to make up for the red shift due to matter shrinkage. Statement backed up for your convenience.

Actually I am ~ right. Hydrogen redshift is measured off of the spectra line 656 nanometers (which is what I was going by). The actual change at 27 million light years would be ~1.2 nanometers. 20 million light years is closer to an average red shift of 1 nanometer.

Which definitely means that objects farther away (in spacetime) would have higher red shifts according to my hypothesis. We have to remember that travel towards us can negate and even reverse the red shift due to matter shrinkage (take m31 for example).

I agree that there would be problems if my hypothesis contradicted the hubble flow. However, my theory does eliminate the apparent acceleration by explaining why red shift is greater the farther away in spacetime we measure.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that all measurements are relative. I thought light had been agreed upon as the arbitrary reference point (even if we were to say that the speed fluctuated wildly, we still measure velocity off of it).

Light speed does not vary, wavelength does. Light would still travel the same distance in one year, however the wavelength of light would appear to be larger to matter that is smaller. Unit size measurements would not be shrinking-- all matter is shrinking equally. However, the wavelength of light would appear to be growing (if you trapped a light beam for 1 billion years, the wavelength would be larger than when it was initially trapped). The only thing that changes compared to matter is lights wavelength, not its speed.

Gotta go eat some stew!!!

Gauge Boson

No, it would mean that light from the past would appear to have a longer wavelength than when it was emitted. Because we can only measure relatively, let us make a standard unit of distance, say, the meter (defined other than by light speed), constant. Therefore, the wavelength of light, as time passes, will become longer and the speed of light will increase. Hence, the light we see will have had a shorter wavelength than when it is emitted. So light in the past had a shorter wavelength. Try drawing a diagram. Draw two copies of the same wave. Put next to one of them a 2_cm line and next to the other a 1_cm line. The first would be at a given time, and the second would be at a later time when matter would be half as large. Each line would be measured to be the same length at its time as the other at its time. Which wave has a wavelength that can contain more of these unit lines? The later one. Hence, the wavelength of light would be longer in the future and shorter in the past. QED. This is the same general effect as cosmological expansion, except that this also changes the wavelength at which light is emitted at a given time, rather than just light en route.

Statement not backed up. You have not addressed the serious flaws with that claim. First, our cluster is gravitationally bound, so any observed redshifts are not significantly affected by cosmological redshift (1). Rather, they are due to the relative motions of the galaxies as they orbit eachother and move generally toward the Great Attractor (1). Second, due to this, the scatter of the redshifts at a given distance in our cluster is enormous (1). No useful average can be derived from such hard-to-fit data. Third, while I was wrong on M31 (I just looked it up - it is actually inside that range; I've gotten used to my computer's stupid habit of displaying, for example, 0.27e8 rather than 2.7e7 like everyone else, so I have started automatically deducting 1 from the exponent <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ), it is the only non-irregular, non-dwarf galaxy in that range I am aware of (1). Dwarf galaxies are almost impossible to get reliable redshift data on because they are so loose, and many irregulars, such as the Megellanic Clouds, are very irregular and somewhat ill-defined (in shape). Finally, and most importantly, these problems all add up so that Hubble flow data are not considered until a distance of typically 30_Mpc (about 100 million light years) (1).

If you are referring specifically to the hydrogen-alpha line of the Balmer series, say so. That is a numerically correct extrapolation of the Hubble flow, but is physically incorrect. I had thought you meant that ~1_nm was the observed redshift for that distance. It is actually a numerical extrapolation from distances far greater than that. Because you are extrapolating the cosmological redshift of distant clusters to scales on which the effect is drowned out by other effects and largely negated, it is a physically meaningless extrapolation.

Let's say that a given ray of light (beware of reification of rays) is emitted when the universe is half of its size and has a wavelength of 500_nm at that time. When it arrives here, it will have a wavelength of 1000_nm. But the same effect would cause whatever emitted at 500_nm at that time to emit at 1000_nm now. Since redshift only has meaning from comparing experimental or observational measurements of the sources now with those observed for distant galaxies, we would see no redshift.

(See above). The apparent wavelength would get longer with time, but so would the references to compare it to. The effect would be the same magnitude for both. The former would cause redshift and the latter would cause blueshift, perfectly cancelling.

This brings us to the issue of how units are defined. So that a comparison can be drawn between the size of objects and the speed of light, I have, in this discussion, defined all length units as being in reference to a 'standard rod', like the original platinum-iridium meter bar. Otherwise, we would say that everything, including us, is getting smaller, rather than the speed of light is increasing. If you take distance to be your reference frame, the speed of light is increasing. If you take the speed of light to be your reference frame, everything is shrinking. Either way, the speed of light in comparison to the size of objects would be increasing. We would probably measure this as a decrease in the fine structure constant. The fine structure constant, however, has been observed to slightly increase, if anything (2, 3).

Actually, if you measure distance in a way defined by a standard length or compared to the size of the universe, rather than defined by the speed of light, the speed of light would appear to increase. If you define your distances in reference to the speed of light, however, wavelength would not be observed to change. Pick an arbitrary object as your reference frame, say, a stick one meter long. The specific object does not matter because all matter would be shrinking at the same rate. In an 'absolute' reference frame, the stick is shrinking and the speed of light is constant. Therefore, in reference to the stick (and to you), the speed of light would be increasing. If, OTOH, you define length in terms of the speed of light, the stick shrinks and everything about light remains constant. It would go thorugh the same number of cycles in a given amount of time and, since distance would be defined in terms of the distance light travels in a given amount of time, the wavelength would remain constant.
Unit size measurements would not be shrinking relative to other objects, but they would relative to the distance light travels in a given amount of time (the speed of light). In an 'absolute' reference frame, the objects are shinking and the speed of light is constant. Try another diagram. Draw two 10_cm (or so) lines to represent the 'absolute' distance light travels in a given amount of time. Draw next to the first one a 2_cm line to represent the size of a unit distance (defined in terms of the size of any object) at time A. Next to the other line, draw a 1_cm line to represent the size of the unit distance at a later time B. As you can see, more units fit across the 10_cm lines at the later time than the earlier one. Because we would be shrinking along with the units, we would measure the speed of light in terms of them. Therefore, we would measure that light travels further in a given amount of time in the future than now. Thus, the speed of light would be measured to increase.
The billion light-year length you mention would remain constant in an 'absolute' reference frame. But the units we would measure it by are shrinking along with everything else, so we would measure more to 'fit' across the billion light-years than before and thus would consider that distance to increase. Therefore, we would consider the speed of light to increase. Only if our units are shrinking relative to the light-year does this, or the wavelength change, happen. If we define the length units in terms of the speed of light, we instead measure every object in the universe to get smaller, with no change in the speed or wavelength of light.

(1) Universe, Fifth Edition. Kaufmann, William J. III and Freedman, Roger A. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1999.
(2) "Time Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant". Murphy, Michael T.; Webb, John K.; Flambaum, Victor V.; and Curran, Stephen J. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209488" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.
(3) "Black Holes may not Constrain Varying Constants". Carlip, S. and Vaidya, S. <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0209249" target="_blank">Available on the arXiv e-print archive</a>.

Kharakov

Actually, I said that matter was larger in the past. I also stated that the emitted light from the matter would have a longer wavelength.

I don't understand the problem here, although I think stating that lights wavelength changed enroute is wrong- I would rather say that matter shrank and keep light as the arbitrary unit of measure for all things.

Fine, I was giving an example of how little redshifting would occur when something was within 20 million light years of us. Somehow it got strawmanned into another subject altogether (not on purpose, I am sure). My point was that there would be very little redshift due to matter shrinkage locally.

My hypothesis is that matter is smaller now, so emits light at a smaller wavelength. Matter in the past was larger so it emitted light at a larger wavelength. The whole point of me stating that the sun is only 9 minutes removed from us is to point out that there would be negligable change in the size of matter before the light hits us- for there to be appreciable redshifting due to change in the size of matter we would have to be millions of light years from the source of the light.

My point is that light would not be altered over time- the size of the matter we compare it to would. The references we are comparing the light to are getting smaller, therefore the wavelength would be longer now than in the past. Imagine this:

2 lasers, perfectly tuned to the same wavelength seperated by 1 billion light years with a detector 100 meters from one of them.

far laser fires

near laser fires ~ 1 billion years later at detector

result of far laser in detector is red shifted so that the wavelength of the light no longer perfectly matches near laser

near laser is still at same wavelength (minus redshift for 100 meters which is negligible)

It might actually be doing that. That is a very good point. I am going to sleep on this one. How would we determine that since the speed of light is now the standard we determine the length of a meter with? (The standards rod is not as accurate-- but quite possibly, light isn't either ). In the 20 years that we have had an accurate measure of the speed of light, has anyone measured it vs. the standards rod to see if it is still the same? (if it is faster (compared to matter) by ~7e-9%/year it would support my theory)

It is late where I am (need sleep, getting all googly). I will reread your comment tomorrow, I need to think about the speed of light while I am not googly.

Thanks

Kharakov

We have to consider whether or not the speed of interaction within matter would increase because matter was of a smaller size. If there is less distance for gluons, bosons, photons etc. to travel in order to transmit force/info (as they are limited in speed of transmission) it follows that that there would be a greater rate of interaction within matter.

This could give us the effect of a clock moving faster in the future than in the past. The increase in the speed of light would be canceled out by the increase in speed of the atomic interactions. However, we are still left with light of greater wavelength (only the apparent velocity stays the same).

Gauge Boson

Just want to let you know I haven't left. I'm a little busy, but I should be able to crank out the needed back-of-the-envelope calculations by Saturday night.

On your suggestion that the rates of interaction would increase due to the constant speed of light and reduced size of matter: yes, but I don't think exactly how you had in mind. This would happen, but only because the apparent speed of light would increase. If somehow the apparent increase in the speed of light were canceled out, this effect would be also. This effect does not appear to cause the apparent increase in the speed of light to be cancelled, so at least it does not cause a logical contradiction. If it did cause the apparent increase in c to be cancelled, this effect would cancel itself, which would cause c to appear to increase, which would cause this effect, which would cancel the apparent increase in c, which would cancel the effect... You get the idea.

A change in the apparent 'rate' of time is inherently meaningless. Time cannot 'flow'; it has nothing to 'flow' relative to. Our current understanding of time considers it to be a static fourth dimension; particles simply follow a 'timelike curve' through spacetime. This will undoubtedly be modified in the future. Of course, this leads to the unsolved 'what is time' debate, but whatever the answer, there is no way to measure the 'rate' of time. Instead, the closest thing to this that can be measured is the speed of light.

Gauge Boson

OK, I finally decided to go through the numbers and find out what would happen on the atomic scale and with light. Since spectral lines are determined by atomic behavior, I consider this the best place to look. It is also the only domain in which such changes in matter size could occur, so it is the best place to test this.

First, I selected certain values as proxies for matter size. The two most important are the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom, which is the equivalent radius of the ground state orbit, and the electron Compton wavelength, which can be roughly thought of as the equivalent size of an electron. Next, I used the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to put restrictions on the possible changes in Planck's constant. This limited the possible change to a reduction. A constant or increasing Planck's constant would not work due to the requirement for increasing definition of particle location. I then added the following values which put restrictions on matter shrinkage: Hydrogen energy levels as a proxy for spectal lines; spin, which determines certain spectra; and the ratio of photon energy to wavelength as a relation between energy levels and observed wavelengths. I consider with a constant speed of light, an increasing speed of light, and a decreasing speed of light.

• These are the restrictions:
• The Bohr radius and Compton wavelength must decrease with time.
• Planck's constant must decrease with time.
• Atomic energy levels must remain constant.
• Particle wavelength must decrease.
• Spin must remain constant.
• The wavelength-to-energy ratio must remain constant.
• The fine structure constant must remain close to constant, increasing slightly.

So now I consider three different situations, all with a decreasing Planck's constant: constant speed of light, increasing speed of light, and decreasing speed of light. I then compare the results with the requirements.

• My results are:
• A constant speed of light is not possible because it results in decreasing energy level potentials and an increasing wavelength-to-energy ratio. This would mean that the spectra of elements would redshift faster than the light on its way, so we would observe a net blueshift with distance.
• An increasing speed of light is not possible because it would result in a decreasing spin. This would decrease the energy of spin-flip transition radiation with time. Combined with the rapidly increasing wavelength-to-energy ratio in this situation, this causes the emitted wavelength to increase more quickly than the wavelength of traveling light, resulting in a net blueshift of 21_cm galactic radiation with distance.
• A decreasing speed of light is not possible. In order for there to be a shrinkage of matter, the speed of light must decrease slower than Planck's constant does. This results in a rapid decrease in energy level potentials and an increase in the wavelenght-to-energy ratio. This would cause the same problems as a constant speed of light, only worse.

Of course, there are some other problems with these scenarios; I have simply listed those most obvious and troublesome. It appears that the problem with spin remains as long as Planck's constant decreases, which is a requirement for matter to 'shrink'. I discovered, that these situations can yield an increase in the fine structure constant. This really doesn't mean anything, but I thought it was cool anyway. If you would like, I can e-mail you a chart of the changes in physical values for each of these scenarios along with the equations used.

• Here is what is needed for this to work:
• Planck's constant must decrease with time.
• The Bohr radius and Compton wavelength must decrease with time.
• The wavelength of spectral lines must remain constant relative to the size of matter with time.
• The wavelength of light emitted by spin-flip transitions must remain constant relative to the size of matter with time.
• The fine structure constant must not decrease with time.
• It is preferable (required?) that the relation between energy and wavelength remains constant with time.

I had not considered these atomic effects before and they can get a little involved, but we need only consider crude estimates.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Gauge Boson ]

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Gauge Boson ]

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Gauge Boson ]

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gauge Boson ]</p>

Kharakov

Hehehe. Just got back from a weekend in Pittsburgh, whew..

I think the effect would only cause one 'cancelation'.

Suppose that matter has decreased in size 50%. If the distance for particles in matter to travel decreased 50% than the transmission of force between 2 particles would take place at twice the rate it did when the distance between the particles was twice as large. A clock would tick twice as fast because all of the interactions that drive it are occuring at twice the rate.

When light passes a clock (A) that is 1/2 the size of another clock (B), it takes 1/2 the amount of time to pass the smaller clock (A) than it does for light to pass the larger clock (B). Because smaller clock (A) has hands that move at 2 times the speed of larger clock (B), the light appears to pass both clocks at the same rate (when compared to the clock it is passing). Light will take the same amount of ticks to pass clock (A) compared to clock (A) as it takes to pass clock (B) compared to clock (B).

Kharakov

I would appreciate if you email me the chart and the equations.

I think one of the main problems that I am having is that I do not picture atomic effects changing in relation to matters 'size' if everything shrinks relative to everything else.

Against the hypothesis:

Instead of energy being dispersed over an ever greater area (expanding universe) and red shift being accounted for with increased momentum away from us, the matter shrinkage hypothesis leads to an apparent net loss of total energy (longer wavelength= lower energy photon) within the whole system, unless the loss is accounted for in some other way. I need to let my brain work on this in the background for a little bit while I go get a little bit of exercize.

Gauge Boson

What gives matter its 'size' on atomic scales is the uncertainty in a particle's position. This uncertainty is defined by Planck's constant (a.k.a., Planck's quantum of action). Additionally, the Bohr radius, the equivalent radius of the ground energy level of a given atom, is determined by Planck's constant and the speed of light. So in order for matter to 'shrink' in an 'absolute' sense, Planck's constant must decrease, as well as the Bohr radius of any given atom.

What format would be best for you? Word, Excel, RTF, etc.?