User:DirkvdM/Physics

This was on my user page in the 'Physics' section, but during a cleanup session I decided to keep only the parts by me and move the rest here.

Alternative to the Big Bang theory
On 24 September 2005 I placed the following on the science reference desk. I should get into the subject a bit more to support the theory, but this is a start. Normally I reserve this page for my use only, but if you want to comment on this feel free to do so below. (For the original thread view source.)


 * I've long had an alternative to the Big Bang theory, which surfaced when I gave an answer to Reference_desk/Science hereabove. I'm very much a layman when it comes to this field, but I made a prediction that went against the accepted theories but turned out to be correct, which is a bit of a theoretician's wet dream :) . So I now venture to put this theory before you. Here goes.


 * As a kid I heard the expanding universe explained as a balloon with dots on it. On that everything moves away from everything else, which is exactly what we observe in the universe. But then I wondered, how do you know a balloon expands? My thought was that you know that because the only alternative is that the room you're in (and everything else) is getting smaller. Which would be silly. The simplest solution is held to be true, which is that the balloon expands. But for the universe there are (by definition) no surroundings to compare with. There is no reference frame, so one has to assume the size of of the universe is given. I couldn't think of a solution then.


 * Neen, Nee, Nay, No. We know the universe is expanding for the clear cut reason that we observe red shifting in the spectra of the light being emitted from distant objects. I.e. the ubiquitous Hydrogen emission/ absorption lines are observed to be shifted to lower energies (red) or higher energies (blue) depending on whether the object is moving towards us or receding away from us.
 * I think the problem you have here both above and below is that as with most people a proper understanding of Einstein's general theory of relativity is elusive, which then leads to misconceptions, questions and thence new theories to explain these misconceptions.
 * Heck I did a PhD in Physics and I still don't understand it. It all lies in our inherent inability to seperate our intuitive notions of space and time from the reality. Personally I don't think it is 'understandable' as such, it just 'appears' out of the mathematics, a bit like the case with quantum mechanics. Only when you have ground your way through, and understood the mathematics can you say that you have an inkling of the 'reality' of the subject, and even then only a vague understanding.


 * Finally, as for the rest of your page, fascinating and I am very much on your wavelenght;) just a pity you feel you can't contribute any more.1812ahill (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But later I realised that you can also compare the sizes of the universe and everything in it. If the size of the universe is given then the stars and such must be getting smaller. Hmmm, stuck again.


 * Later still I imagined falling into a black hole. I was supposed to get stretched out. But that's seen from the framework of an outside observer. For me, I'm part of the spatial framework that gets expanded.


 * [Again, no, for you everything appears normal, you only appear weird to the observer in the other reference frame, just as he appears weird to you 1812ahill (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC).]

Also, time gets ever slower from the perspective of the outside observer, but, again, I live in that timeframe, so from my perspective it will take me forever to fall into the black hole


 * [So, as I said above you have it backward you see time ticking normally, and see him slowing down, just as he in his reference frame sees time ticking normally and sees you slowing down. As for communicating between the two of you the problem becomes one of agreeing om what is a simulataneous event. You will find that as you move into different refence frames (as you fall in) you are no longer able to do this. 1812ahill (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I hope I have shed some light on this. Sorry to mess up your page :)].

So for me nothing changes (right?). Except that I see everything around me moving away from me. Hold on, I thought, couldn't that explain the aforementioned phenomenon? What if we are caught in a collapsing (part of the) universe? But then I realised that as things are further away they will accelerate away ever faster. And acceleration is not what happened, right? Stuck again.


 * Until a few years ago someone (Riess or Perlmutter?) discovered that exactly that is the case. When I heard of this I jumped out of my chair. After the initial enthusiasm I didn't know how to present this idea. No-one would take me seriously. Now, finally, I've found a place where knowledgeable people might be bothered to hear me out. So. Any thoughts on this?


 * By the way, I don't necessarily suggest we're falling into a black hole. I suppose being attracted to anything sizeable enough will have a similar effect. And since everything is attracted to everything else there might not have to be anything special going on. Though if it's that simple I find it unlikely no-one will have thought of this before. Or have they?


 * Also, as for the other two bases for the Big Bang theory, I don't have an explanation for the background radiation. The abundance of light elements suggests a fairly 'young' universe, which would still be possible if we're in the middle of the Big Crunch. DirkvdM 09:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

REPLIES BELOW HERE PLEASE (the next section is the compete thread at the ref desk)


 * There are two problems with the local attraction hypothesis for expansion. The first is that this would produce an asymmetry in the microwave background radiation.  The dipole component would be huge.
 * The effect of nearby gravitational attraction doesn't produce recession in all directions. The classic description is the tidal deformation.  Imagine a circle of test masses, with the circle's diameter on the line of attraction.  The test masses "above" and "below" the center recede away.  The test masses perpendicular move inward.  (They have the same downward acceleration as a test mass at the center, but they have a small inward acceleration becuase they lie on different attraction rays -- and all the rays of attraction get close together, converging at the center of the attractor).  Thus, the attraction hypothesis would show nearby objects receding on one axis and approaching on the perpendicular plane.
 * This is precisely what happens with the Earth's tides and is why there are two high tides and two low tides simultaneously (at different places). -- Fuzzyeric


 * See my reply (#22) in "Why didn't the Big Bang implode?": http://advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=638. -lysdexia 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And here are the answers ..... :) That is, the replies I finally got at the science reference desk. It's a good thing I made a copy, because this was on 24 September 2005 and in the ref desk archives, September 2005 doesn't go beyond 22 september. (Maybe because the page is too long?)

Alternative to the Big Bang theory
I've long had an alternative to the Big Bang theory, which surfaced when I gave an answer to Reference_desk/Science hereabove. I'm very much a layman when it comes to this field, but I made a prediction that went against the accepted theories but turned out to be correct, which is a bit of a theoretician's wet dream :) . So I now venture to put this theory before you. Here goes.

As a kid I heard the expanding universe explained as a balloon with dots on it. On that everything moves away from everything else, which is exactly what we observe in the universe. But then I wondered, how do you know a balloon expands? My thought was that you know that because the only alternative is that the room you're in (and everything else) is getting smaller. Which would be silly. The simplest solution is held to be true, which is that the balloon expands. But for the universe there are (by definition) no surroundings to compare with. There is no reference frame, so one has to assume the size of of the universe is given. I couldn't think of a solution then.

But later I realised that you can also compare the sizes of the universe and everything in it. If the size of the universe is given then the stars and such must be getting smaller. Hmmm, stuck again.

Later still I imagined falling into a black hole. I was supposed to get stretched out. But that's seen from the framework of an outside observer. For me, I'm part of the spatial framework that gets expanded. Also, time gets ever slower form the perspective of the outside obeserver, but, again, I live in that timeframe, so from my perspective it will take me forever to fall into the black hole. So for me nothing changes (right?). Except that I see everything around me moving away from me. Hold on, I thought, couldn't that explain the aforementioned phenomenon? What if we are caught in a collapsing (part of the) universe? But then I realised that as things are further away they will accelerate away ever faster. And acceleration is not what happened, right? Stuck again.

Until a few years ago someone (Riess or Perlmutter?) discovered that exactly that is the case. When I heard of this I jumped out of my chair. After the initial enthusiasm I didn't know how to present this idea. No-one would take me seriously. Now, finally, I've found a place where knowledgeable people might be bothered to hear me out. So. Any thoughts on this?

By the way, I don't necessarily suggest we're falling into a black hole. I suppose being attracted to anything sizeable enough will have a similar effect. And since everything is attracted to everything else there might not have to be anything special going on. Though if it's that simple I find it unlikely no-one will have thought of this before. Or have they?

Also, as for the other two bases for the Big Bang theory, I don't have an explanation for the background radiation. The abundance of light elements suggests a fairly 'young' universe, which would still be possible if we're in the middle of the Big Crunch. DirkvdM 09:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi DirkvdM. I know a reasonable amount of physics and will try to give a few comments.  If we were in a collapsing part of the universe, then nearby galaxies would be moving toward us.  This is only true of the Andromeda galaxy, and that is accounted for by the attraction of ordinary gravity.  Everything else is moving away.
 * If we were falling into a region of extremely strong gravity, black hole or otherwise, that would be more clear from nearby conditions than from faraway objects.
 * It is also important to understand what is involved in the expansion of the universe. It is the actual expansion of the "fabric of space", rather than simply objects moving away through ordinary static flat space.
 * Let me know if that helps at all; I'm happy to discuss further here or on User_talk:SCZenz. -- SCZenz 22:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, everything moves together when moving towards a common attractor (such as a black hole or 'everything itself' so to say - the Big Crunch idea). But that is from the perspective of an outside observer who doesn't take the distortion of the space/time fabric into account. But for those inside, space is stretched out more than that (the 'more' here is an assumption that is essential to my theory). Put differently, if I'm falling into the black hole (or whatever) I accelerate towards it. Anything that's ahead of me will have gained a higher acceleration and thus move away from me from my point of view (but is that accelerated? My gut says it is :) ). Likewise, anything that's behind me will do so too, but at a lower acceleration. Sideways this is a bit more complicated, but I believe a similar reasoning applies.
 * You say that the effects of falling into a black hole are more noticeable nearby than for things far away. But I assumed that the distortion of space/time counterbalances the acceleration. Or rather, there is no acceleration, just the distortion. An outside observer who superimposes his local frame on my situation observes an acceleration I don't perceive.
 * More in general, distortion is a misconception, because that assumes an absolute reference frame, which there isn't. What I perceive as distortion is really just the difference between my local distortion and the distortion of another place I observe. So to call the time/space there distorted is really a 'lococentric' (?) pov. DirkvdM 11:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on this stuff either. My understanding is that there are several theories on the nature of the universe.  One is that it starts with the Big Bang then after expanding to some size, it slows down the expansion, because of the gravity of the parts of the universe pulling at each other, and eventually begins to collapse again.  So there's a bunch of theories whether it will expand forever, if it will collapse, or if only our part of the universe is expanding.  Some of this has to do with hidden mass and studies of some patterns of energy.


 * Have you heard of quasars (spelling?)? These are humongous point sources of energy.  One theory is that we are seeing the light from the original Big Bang which bounces off the edges of the universe, less and less frequently as the edges get further away, and by studying the pattern of quazars we can map the shape of the universe.


 * I would prefer to think that what quazars are, are the light from intelligent travelers traveling close to the speed of light, away from us (they are red shift quazars, which is all that can be seen by observers through our atmosphere. If there was blue shift astronomical bodies, we would not see them by astronomy on the planet.  If we study the heavens from telescopes in orbit, then we might see a bunch of blue shift stuff, such as an intelligent visitor headed our way.  However, I not think we looking for this.  Telescopes in space are looking for stuff to expand the knowledge of terresterial astronomers who are already distorted view of looking through the rose colored glasses of our atmosphere, as opposed to starting over in study of our univers. AlMac|(talk) 18:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would the drive system of an alienship put out so much energy as to equal the light of a star? And why aren't any of them heading  sideways, rather than directly away?  -- SCZenz 22:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * When the alien ship is traveling close to the speed of light, its mass is close to infinite. This applies to the mass of all of it, including the ejecta of its propulsion system.  They could be traveling in all directions.  One flaw in my theorizing is the question of how long they would be blasting in some direction, relative to how long we see the red shift quazars through telescopes under our atmostphere. AlMac|(talk) 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Later discussions brought this up again, such as 'Universe Expansion and Contraction', which should get moved to the November archive of the science reference desk, so here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/November_2005#Universe_Expansion_and_Contraction But another one before that too, in October, I believe. Another relevant discussion is User talk:Eequor/Reference/Event horizons

And on 14 september a question about what the universe expands into led to the folowing:
 * I also wondered about the (im)possibility of expansion of something that has to be assumed to be of fixed size when I was a kid and that (plus other thoughts) eventually led to my alternative to the Big Bang theory. But assuming the correctness of the theory of a Big Bang leading to an expanding universe, it is quite immaginable that there is another 'universe' that grew from another Big Bang. If they both expand, then could these ever touch? If so, how could their distance be expressed if there is nothing between them? And if there is no 'expressable distance', then how could their approach be expressed? And if that can't exist, then how can they ever meet or have been apart? DirkvdM 08:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Two parallel patches of Flatland can approach each other and (perhaps) pass through each other. The distance between them is inexpressible because the only directions in which there is distance in either universe is perpendicular to the direction of separation.  Imagine that the answer to the principle question were "3 meters"; then the follow-up question is "in which direction", which is unanswerable.  Now, if there is brane cosmology then this could be exactly the situation in which we find ourselves, but (hopefully) measurable dynamics would set a metric in the direction of brane separation and so "distance" could be meaningful, i.e. would set a norm (mathematics). -- Fuzzyeric 03:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And two threads further an interresting discussion under 'To the ends of spacetime itself!'. where a distinction is made between the observable universe and the universe itself, of which only the former expands. I have to read that article!

Later on the ref desk this observation about the expanding balloon thing, by Sockatume: If the surface gets bigger - like inflating a balloon - then the universe gets bigger, and things on the surface move further away from eachother. However from the point of view of the 2D people on the surface, it's not expanding into anything. There's just more space available. The thing to realise is that it's not just stuff extending out into the cosmos when the universe expands - it's space-time and reality itself. Stuff outside the universe by definition doesn't exist.

Mendeleyevian Mechanics
This table shows the derived SI units that use the basic units kg, m and s, expressed in just those units and not other units like Newton, because I feel that that should give more insight in what these units mean (assuming kg, m and s are the 'real' basic units of mechanics).

I wonder what Mendeleyev would have made of this. There is a certain logic to the way it is built up, with usually the kg and m above the divisor and the s below it. Might momentum be the most basic unit of them all? But there are some missing, most notably kg/s. That should mean something, shouldn't it? And why are there just a few of the other combinations (below the grey line in the tbale). There should be either none or the entire spectrum. And s to a power is only used in combination with other units. And no derived unit uses m3 in conjuction with the other two.

I also wonder what a philosopher might make of this. Why is the table almost complete for mass and length above the divisor and time below it? What is so special about that? Do we maybe have an inverse view of time (whatever that means)? Would thinking in terms of frequency in stead of time give us a better insight into the Universe?

According to the SI derived unit article there are just a few units that have mass below the divisor, three in electricity, plus specific volume: m3/kg. And mass is never raised to a power. So kg2 has no meaning? I can indeed not imagine what it would mean. Length to the powers 1, 2 and 3 are clear and used a lot (although the third power not in all possible combinations). And I 'know' what those mean. But what is time to the power 2 or 3? Once again (see above) time is the problematic one. Should I be able to grasp what these mean to get a true understanding of reality?

Still working on this .....

I asked a question about the meaning of time-exponents and dimensions at the science ref desk, which raised some issues, but didn't quite end with a satisfactory conclusion (for me). I assumed that m2 indicated a second spatial dimension, but that was disputed. I further assumed that the same mathematical equation should always have the same meaning, so s2 should indicate a second temporal dimension, but it was pointed out that the units are essentially different, ie one can not go back in time. Or, better put (I suppose), time is directional, while length isn't.

If you have any useful input, please add it here.


 * Well, the units of heat capacity are cal/g.K.
 * You missed "yank": m/s^4.
 * Yank is kg.m/s3, and m/s4 is snap, but thanks, I've added those now.
 * In almost every usage, s^x, x>1 come about by differentiation. Differentiation is about ratios of things, so multiple differentiation is about stacked ratios.  Acceleration is m/s^2 when the fraction is simplified, but is found in the for (m/s)/s as d/dt(d/dt(position)).  d/dt(position) is "change in position per change in time", which is delta-meters/delta-seconds and has units m/s.  d/dt(d/dt(position)) is "change in velocity per change in time" which is delta-(delta-meters/delta-second)/delta-seconds and has units (m/s)/s.  Taking the derivatives is not multiplicative, so simplifying the units to m/s^2 is technically erroneous, but is not confusing becuase time doesn't enter into the equations of mechanics in any way except differentiation.
 * I tend to point to the example of heat conduction, which is in units of W/m.K which is a completely unhelpful way to write (W/m^2)(1/(K/m)) which we can actually see is the power transferred through an area as a function of the thermal gradient. In this case, the meters in K/m are introduced by a derivative, so it is technically incorrect to cancel them with the m^2 which is a bona fide area (and doing so is confusing).  There's also a hidden derivative in the Watts: d/dt(Joules) and a bunch of subsequent derivatives in the J = N.m, N = kg.d/dt(d/dt(displacement)).
 * In a very fundamental way, units introduced by differentiation are different from units introduced by extension (i.e., a measurement of a non-zero, non-limiting, non-infinite property of some real thing). -- Fuzzyeric 23:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fuzzyeric: Why do you say "technically erroneous"? The units are constants, so $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial (x_\mathit{unitless} \cdot m)}{\partial (t_\mathit{unitless} \cdot s)} = \frac{\partial x_\mathit{unitless}}{\partial t_\mathit{unitless}} \cdot m/s $$ &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe Mendeleyev would have reduced this to 2 dimensions by setting a natural constant, such as the speed of light, to 1. Interestingly, when you do this with the gravitation constant, you get a numerator of kg2 for the force between two bodies. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you allude to at the start of the page is called Dimensional Analysis, a tool frequently used by engineers (and perhaps others:)) to verify that their proofs/ equations are correct. Also, Fuzzyeric, the Calorie is not an SI unit. Also, Dirk, you have left out a whole dimension of dimensionality (joke), namely Charge, Q. Throw a few of them in as numerators or denominators and a whole new world opens up! (I note above that you mention there are 7 fundamental units. As far as I know there are just 4. Mass, Length, Time and Q (Charge).  Some people like to include the steradian, or solid angle aswell, but this just seems an extension of L to me. So I'm a bit confused).


 * A few years ago I had the idea of making some kind of 4 dimensional chart/ poster listing all named 'properties', units and their fundamental units, like Resistance, Ohm, R= V/I= (kg.m2/s2.q)/(q/s) = kg.m2/s.q2 [Which as u can quickly see is angular momentum per unit charge squared. Wow! Quite meaningless. Or is it?], with on all sides of it the equivalent with +1 and -1 powers of all fundamental units. That way you could cover all feasible properties/ units known to science, many of them un-named. But I quickly realised that it would get too complicated and gave up on the idea. 1812ahill (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I restricted myself to the basic units kg, m and s because they seem to form an almost complete list of combinations, but not quite complete, so I wanted to figure out why, so I made an overview. Maybe when I've figured this out I'll do the same with all of the SI derived units. And there are seven SI base units, including Ampere. But I must agree that Charge seems like something more basic. Ampere feels more 'derived', being flow of charge per second. DirkvdM (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SI system
Just the comment that someone added there:


 * And of course, the defined unit of mass should be prefixed (kilogram). Or in the other SI system (CGS), the defined unit of length should be prefixed (centimeter).  Just an old rant.  And don't get me started on the absence of the standardized Neper, standardized binary prefixes (draft, not adopted), the wild hodgepodge of radiation-related units (Gray, Becquerel, et al.), and so on.  Beyond that, SI is almost useful.  -- Fuzzyeric 23:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no. A basic unit should not be prefixed, because else it wouldn't be a basic unit. Or are you being sarcastic, saying that the basic unit of mass should be the gramme? In that case I agree. It's just that the kg is more on a 'human' scale. But you can just act like the gramme is the basic unit, without causing any confusion as far as I can see. As for the neper, that's not an SI unit. And the gray and becquerel are derived SI units which describe the same thing in different ways. Essentially different, though, which is food for thought, but not illogical, as long as you realise they're not the same, the first being m2s-2 and the second being s-1. I don't know what you mean by standardised binary prefixes. (note the irony in that we spell those differntly :) ). DirkvdM (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)