Monday, September 06, 2010

Closing in or Closing Out

NEW SCIENTIST reports the "inflaton," the hypothetical particle that would have caused faster-than-light inflation, has still not been found.

Closing in on the inflaton, mother of the universe

"The inflaton particle is credited with generating the universe and fuelling its inflation. It has yet to be discovered, but it is fast running out of hiding places, thanks to the theoretical framework known as supersymmetry (SUSY).

"Enormous and mainly extinct, supersymmetric particles are the dinosaurs of particle physics. Each of these "sparticles" is the partner of a known particle, and they have already solved several cosmological problems, including smoothing the way for a long-sought grand unified theory of physics."

The article does not mention that the theorized SUSY particles have never been observed, despite many searches by accelerators. The phase space that they could inhabit gets smaller and smaller. If these SUSY particles are found not to exist, it would be bad for the inflationary paradigm. Physicists would then come up with a theory that will require an even bigger accelerator and more research dollars to disprove.

The inflationary paradigm speculates that the early Universe expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. This would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy conservation) and Relativity's stipulation that nothing travels faster than light. No human machine can replicate the titanic energies near the Big Bang. The inflationary paradigm can never be proven experimentally.

GM=tc^3. When t was tiny, c was enormous and the Universe expanded like a "Bang." As t increased, c slowed due to gravitation and continues to slow at a tiny rate today. This would avoid the problems of inflation, and predicts a Universe exactly as we observe today. Even the 4.507034% baryonic matter can be predicted from pure mathematics. The prediction of a slowing speed of light can be measured in a laboratory.

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Blogger Kea said...

This is taking a while to get through, even though most physicists are beginning to see the gaping holes in the old picture. A toast to new experiments ...

6:49 PM  
Blogger K said...

Isn't the only way to see a slowing of c require atomic clocks? And doesn't the atomic energy levels which dictate their accuracy also depend on c through the fine structure constant?

Has someone looked at this and determined that you would still see the effect?

9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Ms. Riofrio,
I see you removed my previous post answering K's question, pointing out that it is meaningless to claim that quantities such as the speed of light change with time. One can only talk about dimensionless quantities such as the fine-structure constant. You are apparently such a cowardly crackpot that you wish to hide these facts.
You are pathetic.

5:56 PM  
Blogger Kea said...

Let's see ... anonymous criticism from someone who has clearly failed to read any earlier blog posts. Definition of cowardly, anyone?

6:22 PM  
Anonymous ken anthony said...

it is meaningless to claim that quantities such as the speed of light change with time.

How could it possibly be meaningless? Time itself changes with gravity.

Can your equation be used to determine the age of the universe?

12:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Ken,
The apparent passage of time depends on the frame of reference of the observer. However, the spacetime interval is invariant. The conversion factor between space and time is the speed of light. If the speed of light were 'slowing' it would simply correspond to a redefinition of units such as the meter and the second. However, the conversion factor between space and time would still be the same. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about a time-varying speed of light. People who do so have a serious misunderstanding of basic physics.

3:56 AM  
Anonymous ken anthony said...

the spacetime interval is invariant; the conversion factor between space and time would still be the same

Both statements seem to be the same assertion.

If the speed of light were 'slowing' it would simply correspond to a redefinition of units such as the meter and the second.

Which is what our host is asserting. So which assertion follows the evidence?

The conversion factor between space and time is the speed of light

c is length/time. So by space you mean length?

We already know that both time and length are not constant, but vary depending on frame of reference. So why is it such a stretch to consider time itself slowing down with reference to the entire universe?

Consider inflation; occam would say time slowing is the simpler explanation.

Bottom line, is there an experiment that could determine the answer one way or the other?

8:49 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

For Ken: Precise experiments can determine if c is slowing. Inflation can only be observed by time-travelling to the first 10^{-33} seconds of the Universe. The inflation scientist would have to be quite small, for the Universe was smaller than a basketball. Someone has made himself appear very, very small.

6:24 PM  
Anonymous ken anthony said...

I spot a mistake in my earlier comment. I spoke of time slowing rather than c. Time slowing would increase c I'm thinking now.

So I'm guessing we would have to determine the speed of light for several moments over a long enough period of time to see the changes?

How many decimal places are we looking for?

What is the estimated rate of change?

Is the rate of change itself constant or does it change at a constant rate?

If we had enough precise measurements, would that be enough by itself to show that inflation is unneeded as an explanation?

Sorry for the barrage of questions. I used to love physics in college before I became old and worthless.

9:06 PM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

For Ken: As Galileo proposed, station lights on distant hilltops and measure the time for light to return. Over years you will measure a very small change. The inflationary paradigm is already fading away.

The numbers you seek have been available on this blog for years. Try "Hot Young Solution to Faint Sun Paradox." You are not worthless; you can understand that GM=tc^3.

They made anonymous comments about Galileo too.

6:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Ms. Riofrio,

To put it another way, in the derivation of your 'formula' you use the relation R = c*t. However, what if you use natural units such that c = 1 which we can always do to put space and time on an equal footing. Does it then make any sense to claim that the speed of light depends on time?

Best,

Eric Anonymous

8:55 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Continuing: In Planck or "natural" units, R=ct and GM=tc^3 can be combined in an even simpler form:

M = R = t

After 30 years of inflationistas and 12 years of "dark energy" diverging into increasingly complex speculations, the answer could be this simple. Why didn't anyone figure this out? Perhaps this should be called "M theory."

(Someone has decided to define Earth's location as 1. Talk of a moving Earth makes no sense!)

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:30 PM  
Blogger nige said...

"(Someone has decided to define Earth's location as 1. Talk of a moving Earth makes no sense!)"

Well put. There are ignorant people about who think that if something is defined as integer multiples of a natural unit, this ad hoc dimensionless re-definition is somehow scientific proof that the unit can't vary.

12:07 PM  
Blogger nige said...

(Another example would be that the second of time cannot vary because it is defined in the "authoritative" SI physical units system as the time taken for an integer number of oscillations of a photon emitted by an electron transition between the two hyperfine ground states of cesium-133. Previously the second was defined as a fraction of a mean solar day, which is increasing as tides slow the earth's rotation!)

12:11 PM  
Blogger nige said...

Basically the problem is the kind of people who would be too dependent on authoritative scripture even for most religions, proclaiming the orthodoxy and dogma of science using their textbook as if science is defined by Biblical style written authority.

12:16 PM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

True words, nige. Someone's anonymous comments show that he can repeat what is taught by rote, but can't figure out something simple as M = R = t. No only that, but he has no interest in something outside the party line. To think that people like that are allowed to referee papers...

3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Ms. Riofrio,
You are a completely dishonest person who is seriously deluded. I find it incredibly amusing how you attempt to use your blog to hype your crackpot 'theory', which is really nothing more than an equation from high school physics that you've cooked up and then interpreted in a completely incorrect way. You attempt to give people the impression that you are an authentic scientist when nothing could be further from the truth. Once again, you are completely pathetic. I feel sorry for you and others like you such as Ms. Sheppeard.

6:15 PM  
Blogger Kea said...

Well, it is actually Dr Riofrio and Dr Sheppeard, but let us not worry about that since we appear to be so far from convincing you that you have missed the point ... or a rather large number of points.

6:55 PM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

This post has garnered the most comments in a long time. I think they show how terrified inflationistas are of any competition, refuse to acknowledge that there are competing theories, and resort to infantile of comments.

5:57 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page