View Full Version : Subject: Re: A Viable Alternative to GR?
Garth Barber
Dec3-04, 04:47 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The original SCC paper was published in 1982 with now over 45 =\ncitations. In that paper cosmologies were explored in which the matter =\nfield might be created out of self-contained gravitational and scalar =\nfields. Two theories were postulated, the first was rejected on the =\ngrounds of experimental violation of the equivalence principle, and the =\nsecond was an early version of the present theory. =20\n\n\n\nSCC theories are an adaptation of the Brans Dicke theory in which =\nthe conservation requirement is relaxed to allow the scalar field to =\ninteract with matter. If the Brans Dicke theory can be thought of as GR =\n+ Mach\'s Principle, the latest SCC can be thought of as GR + Mach\'s =\nPrinciple + Local conservation of energy.=20\n\n=20\n\nThe theory is highly determined and therefore readily =\nfalsifiable. Consistency between the two \'time-time\' and \'space-space\' =\ncomponents of the cosmological field equation requires the \'string\' =\nequation of state p =3D -1/3 rho. =20\n\n\n\nIn the new theory test particles in solar system experiments are =\nfound to follow the geodesics of GR, so the predictions of GR and SCC =\nalready tested are equal; although there are three experiments that =\nwould distinguish between the two theories. One such experiment is the =\nGravity Probe B geodetic precession experiment launched on Aril 20th =\n2004. (SCC predicts a geodetic precession 5/6 of GR, i.e. 5.5120 =\narcsec/yr, but a frame dragging precession equal to that of GR. see =\n"Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory" =\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094 to be published in "Progress in =\nGeneral Relativity and Quantum Cosmology. " Nova Science Publishers, =\nInc. New York.)\n\n\n\nIn the Jordan Frame of SCC energy is conserved but energy-momentum =\nis not. Photons are the means of measuring length, time and mass. =\nParticle proper masses increase with gravitational potential energy and =\nas a consequence cosmological red shift is caused by a secular, =\nexponential, increase of particle masses and not cosmological expansion. =\nThe universe is static (with atomic rulers \'shrinking\' exponentially) =\nand eternal (with atomic clocks \'speeding up\' exponentially).=20\n\n=20\n\nIn the Einstein Frame of SCC energy-momentum is conserved and =\nparticle proper masses are invariant. Atoms are the means of measuring =\nlength, time and mass. As the scalar field adapts the cosmological =\nequations the universe expands linearly, it is a "freely coasting" =\nuniverse, which has remarkable concordance with observed cosmological =\nconstraints. (See papers by Gehaut, Lohiya et al.) Furthermore the =\ncosmological solution requires the universe to have an overall density =\nparameter of only one third.\n\n\n\nA \'time-slip\' exists in SCC between atomic \'clock\' time on one hand =\nand gravitational ephemeris and cosmological time on the other, which =\nwould result in an apparent sunwards acceleration of the Pioneer =\nspacecraft as indeed is observed.\n\n\n\nHence the theory does not require dark energy, or a significant =\namount of dark matter, or quintessence, to account for the present =\ncosmological constraints.\n\n\n\nThanks\n\nGarth\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The original SCC paper was published in 1982 with now over 45 =
citations. In that paper cosmologies were explored in which the matter =
field might be created out of self-contained gravitational and scalar =
fields. Two theories were postulated, the first was rejected on the =
grounds of experimental violation of the equivalence principle, and the =
second was an early version of the present theory. =20
SCC theories are an adaptation of the Brans Dicke theory in which =
the conservation requirement is relaxed to allow the scalar field to =
interact with matter. If the Brans Dicke theory can be thought of as GR =
+ Mach's Principle, the latest SCC can be thought of as GR + Mach's =
Principle + Local conservation of energy.=20
=20
The theory is highly determined and therefore readily =
falsifiable. Consistency between the two 'time-time' and 'space-space' =
components of the cosmological field equation requires the 'string' =
equation of state p =3D -1/3 \rho. =20
In the new theory test particles in solar system experiments are =
found to follow the geodesics of GR, so the predictions of GR and SCC =
already tested are equal; although there are three experiments that =
would distinguish between the two theories. One such experiment is the =
Gravity Probe B geodetic precession experiment launched on Aril 20th =
2004. (SCC predicts a geodetic precession 5/6 of GR, i.e. 5.5120 =
arcsec/yr, but a frame dragging precession equal to that of GR. see =
"Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory" =
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094 to be published in "Progress in =
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology. " Nova Science Publishers, =
Inc. New York.)
In the Jordan Frame of SCC energy is conserved but energy-momentum =
is not. Photons are the means of measuring length, time and mass. =
Particle proper masses increase with gravitational potential energy and =
as a consequence cosmological red shift is caused by a secular, =
exponential, increase of particle masses and not cosmological expansion. =
The universe is static (with atomic rulers 'shrinking' exponentially) =
and eternal (with atomic clocks 'speeding up' exponentially).=20
=20
In the Einstein Frame of SCC energy-momentum is conserved and =
particle proper masses are invariant. Atoms are the means of measuring =
length, time and mass. As the scalar field adapts the cosmological =
equations the universe expands linearly, it is a "freely coasting" =
universe, which has remarkable concordance with observed cosmological =
constraints. (See papers by Gehaut, Lohiya et al.) Furthermore the =
cosmological solution requires the universe to have an overall density =
parameter of only one third.
A 'time-slip' exists in SCC between atomic 'clock' time on one hand =
and gravitational ephemeris and cosmological time on the other, which =
would result in an apparent sunwards acceleration of the Pioneer =
spacecraft as indeed is observed.
Hence the theory does not require dark energy, or a significant =
amount of dark matter, or quintessence, to account for the present =
cosmological constraints.
Thanks
Garth
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Garth Barber" <garth.barber@virgin.net> wrote in message\nnews:001001c4d86e\\$b6bf2980\\$fd916751@o emcomputer...\n> The theory is highly determined and therefore readily =\n> falsifiable. Consistency between the two \'time-time\' and \'space-space\' =\n> components of the cosmological field equation requires the \'string\' =\n> equation of state p =3D -1/3 rho. =20\n\nBecause of the string equation of state your theory can be\ntested, not only by the experiments you propose, but\nalso by cosmological observations.\n\nNow one very obvious conclusion from the fact, that the\nactive gravitational mass-density of strings is zero, is that\nH t = 1 for any universe consisting out of stringy matter.\nAccording to WMAP and the recent supernova measure-\nments this relation is confirmed within the measurement\nerrors [WMAP quotes H t = 0.98 - or was it 0.96?]\n\nWhat I find more difficult in a string dominated universe\nis, that there is no particle horizon [at least not in the sense\nof the standard FRW-cosmology]. Now as I understand it\n[I might be wrong] the position of the acoustic peaks in\nthe WMAP spectrum is related to the different horizon\nsizes at time of decoupling [z ~ 1000] and today. I think\nI read some papers, that even in a coasting universe\nyou expect acoustic peaks at similar position than in the\nstandard FRW-model. Do you know more about this.\nOr specifically: How does SCC [or a coasting model]\nexplain the position and height of the acoustic peaks?\n\nAnother difficulty is nucleosynthesis. Are the densities\nof matter, the temperature and the Hubble constant in\nSCC similar to the densities predicted by standard\nbig bang cosmology at the time of nucleosynthesis? I\nguess they are not, because in a coasting expansion\nthe Hubble constant has a different relation to the\ntemperature (and volume) than in a radiation dominated\nuniverse. If the conditions are not the same, is there\npossibly some non-trivial scaling relation between the\nkey parameters [density of nucleons, density of photons,\ntemperature, Hubble-rate], that produces at least\nsimilar results to the standard scenario?\n\n[...]\n\n> A \'time-slip\' exists in SCC between atomic \'clock\' time on one hand =\n> and gravitational ephemeris and cosmological time on the other, which =\n> would result in an apparent sunwards acceleration of the Pioneer =\n> spacecraft as indeed is observed.\n\nThis is a very interesting prediction of SCC.\n\nI don\'t like this betting business in physics, but if I would bet,\nI would bet that you are at least right in your analysis, that\nthe anomalous Pioneer acceleration [and possible the other\n"Hubble-type" anomalies you pointed out] is due to\na drift between "atomic clock time" [i.e. based on the atomic\nvibration frequencies, dependent on the masses of the atomic\nparticles] and "gravitational time" [i.e. based on the time it\ntakes a planet - or anything else - to orbit the sun].\n\nIt is wonderful, that SCC apparently has a mechanism to\nexplain [even predict] such a drift. However, such a drift\ncould also have different reasons. Such a drift would\n[probably] always occur, when the masses of the\nelementary particles change during the expansion. Of\ncourse this is numerology (but I can cite at least Dirac\nand Weinberg in this), but what is interesting is that the\nmasses of the elementary particles appear to be related\nto the Hubble constant by m^3 \\approx H in natural\nunits. Does SCC predict [or at least explain]\nsuch a relation?\n\nBest MP\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Garth Barber" <garth.barber@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:001001c4d86e$b6bf2980$fd916751@oemcomputer...
> The theory is highly determined and therefore readily =
> falsifiable. Consistency between the two 'time-time' and 'space-space' =
> components of the cosmological field equation requires the 'string' =
> equation of state p =3D -1/3 \rho. =20
Because of the string equation of state your theory can be
tested, not only by the experiments you propose, but
also by cosmological observations.
Now one very obvious conclusion from the fact, that the
active gravitational mass-density of strings is zero, is that
H t = 1 for any universe consisting out of stringy matter.
According to WMAP and the recent supernova measure-
ments this relation is confirmed within the measurement
errors [WMAP quotes H t = .98 - or was it .96?]
What I find more difficult in a string dominated universe
is, that there is no particle horizon [at least not in the sense
of the standard FRW-cosmology]. Now as I understand it
[I might be wrong] the position of the acoustic peaks in
the WMAP spectrum is related to the different horizon
sizes at time of decoupling [z ~ 1000] and today. I think
I read some papers, that even in a coasting universe
you expect acoustic peaks at similar position than in the
standard FRW-model. Do you know more about this.
Or specifically: How does SCC [or a coasting model]
explain the position and height of the acoustic peaks?
Another difficulty is nucleosynthesis. Are the densities
of matter, the temperature and the Hubble constant in
SCC similar to the densities predicted by standard
big bang cosmology at the time of nucleosynthesis? I
guess they are not, because in a coasting expansion
the Hubble constant has a different relation to the
temperature (and volume) than in a radiation dominated
universe. If the conditions are not the same, is there
possibly some non-trivial scaling relation between the
key parameters [density of nucleons, density of photons,
temperature, Hubble-rate], that produces at least
similar results to the standard scenario?
[...]
> A 'time-slip' exists in SCC between atomic 'clock' time on one hand =
> and gravitational ephemeris and cosmological time on the other, which =
> would result in an apparent sunwards acceleration of the Pioneer =
> spacecraft as indeed is observed.
This is a very interesting prediction of SCC.
I don't like this betting business in physics, but if I would bet,
I would bet that you are at least right in your analysis, that
the anomalous Pioneer acceleration [and possible the other
"Hubble-type" anomalies you pointed out] is due to
a drift between "atomic clock time" [i.e. based on the atomic
vibration frequencies, dependent on the masses of the atomic
particles] and "gravitational time" [i.e. based on the time it
takes a planet - or anything else - to orbit the sun].
It is wonderful, that SCC apparently has a mechanism to
explain [even predict] such a drift. However, such a drift
could also have different reasons. Such a drift would
[probably] always occur, when the masses of the
elementary particles change during the expansion. Of
course this is numerology (but I can cite at least Dirac
and Weinberg in this), but what is interesting is that the
masses of the elementary particles appear to be related
to the Hubble constant by m^3 \approx H in natural
units. Does SCC predict [or at least explain]
such a relation?
Best MP
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build,\nfor instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by\nRoman methods, and so forth. But the Romans\' organization-dependent\ntechnology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were\nnever rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The\nRoman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that until rather\nrecent times did the sanitation of European cities that of Ancient\nRome.\n\n209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that,\nuntil perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most\ntechnology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology\ndeveloped since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent\ntechnology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made\nparts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be\nvirtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a\nrefrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it\nwould be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power.\nSo they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators\nrequire large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire\nwithout modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for\nrefrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or\npreserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build,
for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by
Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent
technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were
never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The
Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that until rather
recent times did the sanitation of European cities that of Ancient
Rome.
209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that,
until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most
technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology
developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent
technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made
parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be
virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a
refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it
would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power.
So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators
require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire
without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for
refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or
preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The link to "A Concordant "Freely Coasting Cosmology"" should be:\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306448\n\nGarth\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this post with LaTeX images:\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55186#post400819\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The link to "A Concordant "Freely Coasting Cosmology"" should be:
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306448
Garth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this post with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55186#post400819
1. The theory is indeed testable by cosmological observations. In either the Einstein Frame or Jordan Frame(E) the universe is conformally flat, yet bounded, it is either conical or cylindrical respectively with the long axis being identified with time. As the WMAP data is basically angular in nature and conformal transformations preserve angles the SCC models are consistent with that data. The predicted matter density is 0.22 almost all of which is baryonic. So if DM can be baryonic the mystery as to its identity is resolved in SCC.
2. There is no horizon, particle or event, in the freely coasting model. This renders Inflation redundant. The resultant acoustic predicted peaks are concordant with WMAP and COBE see, ‘A Concordant “Freely Coasting” Cosmology’, Savita Gehlaut, Pranav Kumar Geetanjali and Daksh Lohiya http:arXiv:astro-ph/0306448. I quote from the summary, “The main point we make in this article is that in spite of a significantly different evolution, the recombination history of a linearly coasting cosmology can be expected to give the location of the primary acoustic peaks in the same range of angles as that given in Standard Cosmology.”
3. Likewise with nucleosynthesis (quote from same paper), “The only problem that one has to contend with is the significantly lowyields of deuterium in such a cosmology. Though deuterium can be produced by spallation processes later in the history of the universe, it is difficult to produce the right amount without a simultaneous over production of Lithium[19]. However, as pointed out in [1], the amount of Helium produced is quite sensitive to _ in such models. In an inhomogeneous universe, therefore, one can have the helium to hydrogen ratio to have a large primordial variation. Deuterium can be produced by a spallation process much later in the history of the universe. If one considers spallation of a helium deficient cloud onto a helium rich cloud, it is easy to produce deuterium as demonstrated by Epstein [19] - without overproduction of Lithium. Interestingly, the baryon entropy ratio required for the right amount of helium corresponds to b _ 0.2. Here b is the ratio of the baryon density to a “density parameter” determined by the Hubble constant: Omega(baryon) = 0.2 closes dynamic mass estimates of large galaxies and clusters [see eg [20, 21]]. In standard cosmology this closure is sought to be achieved by taking recourse to non-baryonic cold dark matter. Thus in a linearly scaling cosmology, there would be no need of non-baryonic cold dark matter to account for large scale galactic flows.
4. The clock drift is determined by the two conformal frames of ‘measurement’, in Einstein frame, in which energy-momentum is conserved, the clock is an atomic clock, and in the Jordan frame, in which energy and not energy-momentum is generally conserved, the clock is a gravitational one recording ephemeris time. Atomic time = exp(ephemeris time).
5. In the Jordan frame, in which energy-momentum is not conserved, the masses of fundamental particles increase exponentially with ephemeris time. In this frame Hubble red shift is interpreted as the effect of such mass increase and not cosmic recession, and the universe is static.
Garth
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.