### Let's See What's Out There

This is the helm of MV AURORA AUSTRALIS, where I've been staying for a few days. Unlike most Navy surface ships, you can drive while sitting. Below is the port bridge wing. There is a complete control station here and another on the starboard wing, for maneuvering in tight spots on the ice.

Over at the Interaction Point yesterday, Quasar9 left a interesting comment:

"If Space is not infinite but the inside of a balloon, it is logical there is an outside to that balloon. This may seem trivial to those working on spacetime, but you have effectively created Space outside spacetime, i.e. that Space where Time does not exist."

This echoes a question posed by a close colleague, "If Space is a sphere, then what is outside?"

That question has been on my mind a long time, especially on this journey down under. Here is my answer:

Picture a spherical Universe where our 3 dimensions are the surface. There is no centre in Space, for every bit resembles every other bit. There IS a centre in time, what we call a "Big Bang". This origin is the middle of the sphere with Space/Time expanding away.

Expansion of Space is indistinguishable from the forward flow of Time.

In math terms, R = ct. Radius R of the Universe is its age t multiplied by c. From this simple principle comes expansion, GM=tc^3 and many other predictions. As t increases the Universe expands. It can't expand at the same rate forever, because gravitation causes c to slow.

What is outside the sphere? The future! Personally I'd rather live in the future than dwell on the past. It's a very exciting future that we live in. It is our natural tendency to explore as the Universe expands. As the Captain of ENTERPRISE said: Let's see what's out there!

## 7 Comments:

What happens if you rewrite the equation in theory in units where c is constant, like SI units? Then it is much easier to deal with questions of the fine structure constant etc. and one can also set h = constant.

Then in those units you must have GM increasing with time. Well, why not, except that this is closely related to the well-known gravitational coupling constant which is G m^2 / hc, with hc being kept constant. (m being proton mass.) G m^2 is known not to be changing much since it would cause difficulties for stars and supernovae to behave correctly. Now how can G m^2 be unchanging yet G M be increasing?

Next I don't understand what is M. Total mass-energy of the closed Universe? Does it include gravitational energy? Is it an ADM mass? Does the evolution of the Universe conserve energy, or mass, or neither?

What this goes to show is that if you don't write down a theory in a form that is independent of the units then you will have difficulties.

Now about the luminosity-redshift relation, you have a big ambiguity, since luminosity of supernovae might depend on mass converted into energy, but that has a factor of c^2 in it. So does the mass converted stay constant, or does the resulting energy stay constant, or neither, and why?

Also in the supposed relation between c and redshift: the wavelength of light depends on the energy through the quantity hc, which should be constant to stop alpha from changing. So if the energy levels in atoms remain the same, the wavelength is unaffected by any variation in c. So how do you see any effect, unless energy is not conserved?

I don't think you can call it a theory yet if observable things seem to depend on your choice of units.

One last question, could 'changing c' be detected in any way in Earth-based experiments if the dimensionless coupling constants are not changing?

Thank you Q9, and you are always welcome to reference this blog. I hope you don't mind my quoting your comments.

Thomas, those are good and welcome questions. The SI units of m, kg, and sec may be maintained but their definition based upon fixed c may be changed. "The SI is not static; it is a living set of standards where units are created and definitions are modified with international agreement as measurement technology progresses." (from Wikipedia) The physicists convention that h=c=1 will need to be changed.

Since most measurements show that alpha and the gravitational coupling value are constant, it is likely that hc is constant and h increases. This has applications linking QM, Relativity, the thermodynamic "arrow of time," and conditions of the early Universe. With hc considered constant, atomic energy levels remain conserved.

M is total mass-energy of this closed system. If you include gravitational energy, you get a total energy for the Universe of 0! It's the ultimate free lunch, which is how the Universe expanded from a tiny size to the complexity we observe today. You needn't add energy to the system. (Mass is not conserved on small scales, since it is converted to energy by nuclear reactions)

Concerning luminosity-redshift, you will see from the "Prediction Fits the Data" graph that c change affects both redshift and luminosity. An object of Z=1 recedes at 60% of the present c, which is only 42% of c when that light was emitted. Apparent z is only 0.57. Supernova energy output E=mc^2 is here doubled, for a magnitude shift of -0.75. Thus one can predict the curve of Type Ia supernova redshifts.

There is a way to measure c with an Earth-based observation, which corroborates that c has changed in the amounts predicted, even at low redshifts. That article has been under review for 5 months, for it is not easy publishing papers where c is changing. Thanks to all for your interest and patience; further questions are welcome. This is new physics, but it is better to live in the future than in the past.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

What is outside the sphere? The future! Personally I'd rather live in the future than dwell on the past

Post a Comment

## Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home