Friday, March 30, 2007

Eye in London Pt. 2


(The good news is that the abstract was accepted and put on the schedule as a talk, despite pressure from communists who don't even do research. There will be another day.)
Before formation of matter, initial density for a given mass M is just M/V. That number is less than this number, and the difference is 4.507034% precisely what the WMAP spacecraft has measured. Location of the first acoustic peak shows that density (Omega) = 1 as predicted. You can also model proportions of the Universe’s other components. The CMB provides an indication of change in c. The average temperature is the same over large areas. Even at this time of recombination 300,000 years after the Big Bang, c was much faster.

We can search the CMB for signatures of inflation. (Thank you Dr. Cline for the graph.) The old paradigm says that density fluctuations should be the same at all scales. Inflation’s predicted power spectrum is ruled out by both COBE and WMAP. Here is the prediction of Unified Space/Time. When predictions fit the data this closely, perhaps there is something to the theory. CMB data was initially interpreted to indicate that the universe is flat, like the Earth. When changing c is a factor, it is curved with radius R = ct as predicted.

Labels: , , , ,

9 Comments:

Blogger Kea said...

It is good that you have put up these slides again. Maybe people will realise that they are interesting.

4:40 PM  
Anonymous Sam said...

Almost expected a picture of you being detained and looking very pissed off. There again, it is generally better when you smile, but I'm surrounded by aloha.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't let the buggers get you down. If you are right, your time will come.

Big Island Aloha to you all the same Louise.

7:51 PM  
Anonymous mog said...

you know, white text with a dark drop shadow would have shown up better on the microwave background.

i'm just saying.

11:14 PM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Kea, people who could not be in London have expressed interest in seeing slides. Last installment coming momentarily.

Sam, you don't kniow how much I miss the Big Island. At Tommaso's blog people have tried to track my every movement.

Nice idea Mog, I will do something like that in a future presentation.

7:07 AM  
Anonymous a quantum diaries survivor said...

Hi Louise,

indeed you generated a huge interest in my blog and elsewhere... And I think most of it was positive. Only, those who want to throw stones are typically the most vocal. Not to worry.

Cheers,
T.

6:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Louise,

Thanks again for your replies to my questions in the post below. If it's o.k., I'd like to ask a couple about these two slides.

In your top slide, you've got the 4.5% for baryons, so what are the other two density parameters for? The middle and bottom quantities look like 'Omega_M' and 'Omega_other' so is the former dark matter (intrigued by what the 'other' is!)? Also, how do you derive these figures in your theory? You mention "this number is less than this number", and it's not clear to me which numbers these are.

Related to this, how did you calculate the CMB correlation function in the second slide? O.k., that's pretty involved, I guess I was really interested in what spectrum of primordial density fluctuations you use, and why the function goes to zero (or at least very close to zero) for angular separations larger than about 60 degrees.

Cheers,

Mendo.

1:22 PM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Mendo, I dearly wish for the Space/Time to answer your questions properly. Both relate to density fluctuations grown large by expansion. These can be modelled as Fourier series. The old inflationary paradigm says that fluctuations should be the samne at all scales, leading to a prediction corved ruled out by WMAP and COBE.

Theory predicts that the largest possible fluctuation has half-wavelength of 180 degrees. On the chart, these fluctuations cancel each other out above 60 degrees.

4.507034% is difference between initial mass with no matter to stable mass after matter formation.

23.87% refers to dark mass in clusters. For the remaining 71.62%, look to the "voids" between sheets of galaxies. Theory predicts that such regions contain ultra-massive singularities.

This probably doesn't answer your questions adequately. I am happy for any opportunity to publish or elaborate further.

5:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Louise,

Ah, so the cancellation is just an interference effect. Not sure I understand what you mean by a half-wavelength of 180 degrees, wavelengths are distances I thought? I was really thinking of what power spectrum P(k) of primordial density fluctuations you were using as input (I think inflation has P(k)~k), and how you're evolving this to the epoch of recombination - that must be non-trivial in VSL!

I'm not sure I understand the 4.50% coming from the the difference between initial mass with no matter to stable mass after matter formation. Is the initial mass less than or more than the final stable mass (presumably less than)? Why does all this extra energy go into baryons only - if matter is produced through pair production, aren't there also electrons and other particles being produced depending on the temperature at that time? If there is pair production, then there's matter/antimatter being produced so do you also consider the problem of the matter/antimatter asymmetry?

For the dark mass in clusters, is this black holes like in the voids or something else? You have a very precise prediction of the density which suggests you have a detailed model for what the form of the 'dark mass' is. With the black holes in the voids, why don't they gravitationally cluster with the other mass? I guess this is related to their formation epoch, and if this is early, I would have expected them to cluster with everything else. Do you have a prediction for their mass function (i.e. number per unit mass per Mpc^3)? I'm just wondering if there's any search strategy for them like gravitational lensing.

Anyway, thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions!

Cheers,

Mendo.

2:35 PM  
Blogger dr.psycho said...

You are right in complaining against people who attack you on grounds which have nothing to do with science, and I completely empathize with you.
But you are not showing to be better than them, with your pointless and childish remarking that your personal enemy is a communist.
The fact of being a communist has no relevance in this discussion.

6:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page