Where did the energy in the CMB go to?

[hellfire]

Well, empty, (and therefore?) homogeneous and isotropic.

I think this does not follow. I can imagine a space which is empty and inhomogeneous (may be with some gravitational waves propagating through it).

R₀₀ = R⁰₀₀₀ + R¹₀₁₀ + R²₀₂₀ + R³₀₃₀ = -3d²R/dt²/R

so these components are not all zero simply because space is homogeneous and isotropic.

You are right, but note that my claim was that if space is homogeneous and isotropic and the Ricci tensor vanishes, then all components of the Riemann tensor are zero.

 

[hellfire]

Such a transformation is called a conformal transformation and was first explored by Fred Hoyle and Javant Narlikar in the late 1960’s. I have followed up this line of thinking in my work on ‘http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775’.

Could you please explain why and how a scalar field is needed in such theories? Is it needed in order to locally modify matter to explain redshift and have a physical equivalence with the expanding frame?

 

[Garth]

I think this does not follow. I can imagine a space which is empty and inhomogeneous (may be with some gravitational waves propagating through it).

And what would be the source of this inhomogeneous gravitational radiation?

You are right, but note that my claim was that if space is homogeneous and isotropic and the Ricci tensor vanishes, then all components of the Riemann tensor are zero.

Agreed.

Could you please explain why and how a scalar field is needed in such theories? Is it needed in order to locally modify matter to explain redshift and have a physical equivalence with the expanding frame?

The Brans Dicke scalar field was introduced to fully include Mach's Principle into GR. It does so, even though it keeps inertial masses constant by varying G. Self Creation Cosmology on the other hand varies particle masses (to include gravitational potential energy) and keeps the observed value of G constant. In fact it has two G's, on that is 'felt' by atomic matter and the other 'felt' by relativistic energy such as e-m radiation.
Experiment and observation have constrained the BD scalar field to be so weak most people ignore it, however interest in Dark Energy and the requirements of QG have kept interest in it alive. So far no experiment has yet been carried out that can distinguish between GR and SCC, until now - the GPB experiment, result due in a few months!

Garth

 

[Chronos]

Hi Garth! I think GPB will not support SCC. But you might still be right... will discuss that later. My reasons are very unorthodox... no ZPE involved...

 

[hellfire]

And what would be the source of this inhomogeneous gravitational radiation?

I think it does not need of any source to be part of a solution to the Einstein's equations. But you are right if you say that gravitational waves without any material source might not have any physical meaning.

The Brans Dicke scalar field was introduced to fully include Mach's Principle into GR. It does so, even though it keeps inertial masses constant by varying G. Self Creation Cosmology on the other hand varies particle masses (to include gravitational potential energy) and keeps the observed value of G constant. In fact it has two G's, on that is 'felt' by atomic matter and the other 'felt' by relativistic energy such as e-m radiation.
Experiment and observation have constrained the BD scalar field to be so weak most people ignore it, however interest in Dark Energy and the requirements of QG have kept interest in it alive. So far no experiment has yet been carried out that can distinguish between GR and SCC, until now - the GPB experiment, result due in a few months!

Thank you. One question more: how is the redshift explained in the frame where the universe is observed to be static? I assume the properties of matter must vary somehow. Is the scalar field needed for this?

 

[turbo]

Hi Garth! I think GPB will not support SCC. But you might still be right... will discuss that later. My reasons are very unorthodox... no ZPE involved...

If quantum theory is correct, the potential energy of the ZPE fields is tremendous, and there is no true "vacuum" in our universe, just the ZPE ground state plus or minus any fluctuations and polarization the field might be capable of. Any cosmology that does not include the mass/energy of the virtual particles of the ZPE will fail. I do not believe that we need to search for non-baryonic dark matter - the baryonic (though evanescent) virtual particles of the ZPE are already proven to exist by demonstrations of the Casimir force. If the EM field of the ZPE can be polarized by the presence of mass, we no longer need dark matter.

Andrei Sakharov and others hinted at the relationship between vacuum energy and gravity/inertia years ago. Others have studied the relation more recently, but a limitation of the papers that I have found is that the authors fail to treat the ZPE field as a real field, capable of polarization and density fluxes. This will have to be addressed before quantum theory and GR can be reconciled.

I have suggested before that we need to measure the speed of light between the plates of a Casimir device, to verify that the speed of light in that restricted ZPE field is higher than that in an unrestricted vacuum. Somebody currently involved in ZPE research has informed me that this expected result is called the Scharnhorst Effect, and that our instrumentation is not yet sensitive enough to detect that effect experimentally. It is nice to know that somebody else is on this track, though.