Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble
The press realises that mainstream science is really in the dark. SPACE.com begins their article: "If the notion of dark energy sounds improbable, get ready for an even more outlandish suggestion."
"Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation."
In this scenario, we occupy a bubble of Space with unusually low density. Distant Type Ia supernovae would appear to be dimmer, mimicking the effect of cosmic acceleration. This has some similiarties to the work of David Wiltshire in New Zealand, who suggests that timne itself may move at a different rate in distant regions of the Universe. A changing rate of time is mathematically equivalent to a changing speed of light.
GM=tc^3, the speed of light has changed. Redshifts of distant supernovae are related to c, so the Universe appears to accelerate. In Planck units the equation reduces to M = R = t. A child could figure it out, yet the simplest Theory has not yet reached the mainstream press. Just as astronomy was once dominated by epicycles, today speculation is rife about "dark energy." Someday we may read that real advances in science happen out of the limelight.
Labels: dark energy, speed of light
posted by L. Riofrio at 4:42 PM
10 Comments:
A change in the spead of light affects the luminosity distance calculation, the size of the Chandrasekhar mass, the yield of the SN explosion, and time evolution of the light curve. A credible demonstration that a variable speed of light can explain the SN Ia diagram requires showing how all these effects would affect the SN Ia Hubble diagram.
This in any case would be a hard challenge, since the effect of DE goes away at high redshift, as predicted in advance of the observations, while a variable speed of light would cause even stronger deviations.
A variable speed of light will not be considered until this very basic work is done. Qualitative guesses and assertions are not sufficient.
The Chandrasekhar mass is proportional to hc, so is fixed if product hc is constant. Yield of SN explosion is proportional to mc^2, causing the downward shift in luminosity noted in the papers. Time evolution of light curve is given by the "stretch function." This was worked out a while ago.
You should include a link to your paper that works all this out in detail, in the end showing the derived SN Ia Hubble diagram.
In any case, the SN are too dim at z=0.5, but are fine again at z > 1 - this is non-monotonic behavior. Further, if you have c increasing with redshift, the increased Chandrasekhar mass and energy production would make the SN too luminous, rather than dim.
Everyone check out the Latest paper on GM=tc^3, which refers to the Very Short Paper from 2004.
When light of redshift Z was emitted, c was greater by factor sqrt(1 + Z). A supernova of redshift Z = 1.0 recedes at 60% of today's value of c. That is only 42% of c at time of supernova explosion. Measured redshift z = 0.57 (horizontal arrow). Energy output mc^2 is doubled along with luminosity, for a magnitude change of -0.75 (vertical arrow).
Our Sun's luminosity is related to E = mc^2, causing Earth's temperature to fall within a narrow range over billion of years.
Lunar Laser Ranging is simply related by r = ct. An anomaly in the Moon's recession is precisely explained, indicating that c changes to this day in the amount predicted. Note that multiple measurements containing c are referenced.
From the Blind-guesses-from-a-non-physicist Department: if this bubble theory is true, and the speed of light/time varies in different places, wouldn't some form of "dark energy" still be needed to account for the variation? Put another way, wouldn't there need to be (or at least have been) a force causing the variations in spacetime?
Hello David: Light paths and velocity are affected by good old gravity, only requiring a slight modification to Relativity. One reason Theory will win is because it requires no phantasmagorical new forces.
Good grief you are so amazingly beautiful. I'd do anything to spend time with you.
so are they bubble worlds you hold in your hand?
I've always been of the opinion that different parts of the universe could indeed be in bubbles (even with their own separate physical conditions).
After all even other galaxies could indeed be as such. We take so much for granted and assume or apply the same conditions to other regions of the universe that we do to our own solar system and galaxy.
In point of fact rather than 'other' dimensions, it is more probable that the cosmos or known universe is composed of bubble universe sections or galaxy clusters
Thanks, I think we convinced anonymous! (or is that another anonymous?)
Post a Comment
<< Home