Eternal Generation Cosmology?

[Kharakov]

As metric expansion of space occurs, matter/energy of all forms within it become proportionally smaller in wavelength compared to the total amount of space.

 

The decrease in wavelength of matter/energy is equivalent to an increase in energy (smaller wavelength=higher energy).

 

Matter/energy does not change wavelength (or energy) compared to other matter/energy as its wavelength change is proportional to the size of space.

 

Is it possible for photons and other particles to reach a critical wavelength (compared to spacetime) at which they would form the next generation of matter?

 

In other words: could the photons (and other particles such as neutrinos, etc.) from our galaxies end up as seeds for the next generation of matter (forming many longer wavelength particles) with our current generation's particles (of proportionally shorter wavelength matter/energy) being the (electromagnetically) non-interacting gravitational seeds that we call dark matter (not interacting in a detectable manner because of their extremely short wavelength (high energy) compared to the next generation of matter/energy)?

 

Could the Great Attractor be a non-visible extremely high mass/energy celestial body from the previous generation of matter/energy?

 

What happens as matter/energy increases energy (mass) compared to space?

 

The gravitational influence of matter increases, which is the equivalent of an accelerated "stretching" of space by matter (in other words, an accelerating metric expansion of space).

 

The old matter (from previous generations) constantly increases in energy/mass along with the new matter (of the current generation) which leads to an ever increasing rate of space expansion.

 

Locally, this is counteracted by the ever increasing gravitational influence of matter as it decreases wavelength (increases mass/energy) compared to space.

 

New matter is constantly created, as the speed of space expansion and energy creation exponentially accelerates.

 

 

I haven't run across a theory like this before, and wondered if anyone knows of it or something similar? I mentioned it on another board, but although someone said they had heard or read something similar at some point, they did not know where they saw it or who wrote/spoke about it. If you have any leads, I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks!

[sanctus]

As metric expansion of space occurs, matter/energy of all forms within it become proportionally smaller in wavelength compared to the total amount of space.

Actually i do not see the link between metric expansion and shortening the wavelength of a photon for example. It is usually the other way around, take for example the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) at the surface of last scattering (~300'000 after the Big Bang) they had a temperature of 3000K and then due to the expansion of space their wavelength increased until they got down to temperature of 2.7 K today...

I'm pretty sure you know all this and I did not understand what you meant (the compared to space part?), but in case you don't I can explain...

[Kharakov]

Actually i do not see the link between metric expansion and shortening the wavelength of a photon for example.

I was speaking proportionally (the proportion between the wavelength of the photon and the size of space). If space is larger than it was before (it has expanded) and the wavelength of the photon is the same size, the wavelength of the photon is now smaller in proportion to space than it was when the photon was emitted.

It is usually the other way around, take for example the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) at the surface of last scattering (~300'000 after the Big Bang) they had a temperature of 3000K and then due to the expansion of space their wavelength increased until they got down to temperature of 2.7 K today...

As the wavelengths of all matter and photons from this generation of matter/energy grow smaller (compared to the total amount of space) in synchronicity we would still see red shifts from metric expansion of space: it is only compared to the total size of space that the wavelength of matter/energy* becomes proportionally smaller.

 

*of this generation of matter/energy

I'm pretty sure you know all this and I did not understand what you meant (the compared to space part?), but in case you don't I can explain...

I hope the explanation above is sufficient (but a hopefully more coherent (...in my dreams) rewording follows*). I considered red shifts (including the CMB's) when trying to figure out if anything I knew rendered the idea invalid, false, or not even wrong.

 

 

* Suppose we have a (3 dimensions of space) universe with a space volume of 1000 units cubed (10^3).

A photon is emitted of wavelength 2 units.

When the space of the universe has increased in volume to 8000 (20^3) units cubed, the wavelength of the photon would still be the same (2 units) however at this point the ratio of its wavelength to the size of space in universe would be smaller.

 

The wavelength of a photon in relation to the wavelength of other matter/energy effects the interaction between the photon and the other matter/energy.

 

If a photon is red shifted or blue shifted in relation to other matter/energy, there is a measurable effect on its interaction with the other matter/energy.

 

The idea is that the photon is blue shifted in relation to the size (maybe 'wavelength'?) of space as space expands.

 

Other matter/energy in space is blue shifted in relation to space as well, at the same rate as the photon (equally). The expansion of space between matter clusters (galaxies) still redshifts photons emitted from distant galaxies in relation to other matter, as all matter/energy blue shifts in relation to space in synchronicity.

 

 

I hope my long winded explanation clarifies things a bit. If it didn't, I have to think of a better way of explaining the idea.

 

Still looking for anything similar that has been written, if anyone knows of something.

[sanctus]

I see your point now I think. But isn't it that if you are in comoving coordinates space does not grow and the wavelength will always be 2 (comoving) units? On the other hand if you go to physical coordinates there is just a redshift...

 

Hope, that it is sort of coherent, then write things like this first thing in the morning...

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

I came across this link and thought it maybe of interest to read.

 

I'm not trying to prove a point. Later I will read more on this topic.

 

A Conformal Field Theory for Eternal Inflation

Authors: Ben Freivogel, Matthew Kleban

(Submitted on 12 Mar 2009)

 

Abstract: We study a statistical model defined by a conformally invariant distribution of overlapping spheres in arbitrary dimension d. The model arises as the asymptotic distribution of cosmic bubbles in d+1 dimensional de Sitter space, and also as the asymptotic distribution of bubble collisions with the domain wall of a fiducial "observation bubble" in d+2 dimensional de Sitter space. In this note we calculate the 2-,3-, and 4-point correlation functions of exponentials of the "bubble number operator" analytically in d=2. We find that these correlators, when carefully defined, are free of infrared divergences, covariant under the global conformal group, charge conserving, and transform with positive conformal dimensions that are related in a novel way to the charge. Although by themselves these operators probably do not define a full-fledged conformal field theory, one can use the partition function on a sphere to compute an approximate central charge in the 2D case. The theory in any dimension has a noninteracting limit when the nucleation rate of the bubbles in the bulk is very large. The theory in two dimensions is related to some models of continuum percolation, but it is conformal for all values of the tunneling rate.

[Kharakov]

I see your point now I think. But isn't it that if you are in comoving coordinates space does not grow and the wavelength will always be 2 (comoving) units? On the other hand if you go to physical coordinates there is just a redshift...

 

Hope, that it is sort of coherent, then write things like this first thing in the morning...

Lol, I know the feeling. Coffee normally helps me get out of my morning slowness.... but not today, lack of sleep is putting a hurtin' on me. Anyways... I don't really understand your question, but it could be my brain, not much sleep last night.

[Kharakov]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

I came across this link and thought it maybe of interest to read.

 

I'm not trying to prove a point. Later I will read more on this topic.

 

A Conformal Field Theory for Eternal Inflation

Authors: Ben Freivogel, Matthew Kleban

(Submitted on 12 Mar 2009)

 

Thanks Pluto, your post led me to a bunch of interesting topics on wikipedia and elsewhere. Reading an article by Alan Guth on Edge.Org at the moment (which may have some pertinence).

 

The article (by Guth) led me to consider the uniformity (and anisotropies) of the CMB.

 

If the idea that a photon/particle from a previous generation of matter created the currently observable universe is true, it seems almost certain that the current generation of matter would have to have been created by a single interaction due to the uniformity of the CMB unless the initiating reaction caused a cascade of high energy interactions over a large area prior to hydrogen formation (at which point that area of the universe became transparent).

 

Gotta go, brain is thinking, but BBQs do not start themselves... or do they?

[modest]

I agree with Sanctus

 

If I understand you correctly, Kharakov, it seems like you've got your redshift / expansion relationship backwards. Photon wavelength increases with the expansion of space while the size of atoms do not. From our perspective then, a photon's wavelength will get larger as space expands.

 

~modest

[Kharakov]

I agree with Sanctus

 

If I understand you correctly, Kharakov, it seems like you've got your redshift / expansion relationship backwards.

Hi modest,

The redshift / expansion relationship remains intact in the scenario (larger recession velocity = larger redshift). Metric expansion redshift is due to the recession velocity of the body the photon is moving towards.

 

In the scenario proposed, expansion redshifts are not eliminated (they remain the same). However, the wavelengths of the photons (and/or particles) are smaller in proportion to the size of space itself (more space + same wavelength photon = photon has smaller wavelength to space size ratio).

 

Photon wavelength increases with the expansion of space while the size of atoms do not.

To be clear, a photon's wavelength does not actually change in transit, rather it is the recession velocity of the observer that redshifts the photon.

[modest]

Hi modest,

The redshift / expansion relationship remains intact in the scenario (larger recession velocity = larger redshift). Metric expansion redshift is due to the recession velocity of the body the photon is moving towards.

 

In the scenario proposed, expansion redshifts are not eliminated (they remain the same). However, the wavelengths of the photons (and/or particles) are smaller in proportion to the size of space itself (more space + same wavelength photon = photon has smaller wavelength to space size ratio).

 

To be clear, a photon's wavelength does not actually change in transit, rather it is the recession velocity of the observer that redshifts the photon.

 

My understanding is that you can model redshift as recession with one coordinate choice or you can model it with expanding space with another coordinate choice. Essentially: either galaxies are redshifted because they have a recession velocity or they are redshifted because space between them expands. I don't see how you could apply both.

What Causes the Hubble Redshift? Are the light waves "stretched" as the universe expands, or is the light doppler-shifted because distant galaxies are moving away from us?

 

In a word: yes. In two sentences: the Doppler shift explanation is a linear approximation to the "stretched light" explanation. Switching from one viewpoint to the other amounts to a change of coordinate systems in (curved) spacetime.

 

What Causes the Hubble Redshift?

 

Ned Wright's cosmology tour explains that the distance and time in Hubble's law is not the same thing as the distance and time in special relativity. It shows two spacetime diagrams of a low density universe with each coordinate choice saying:

The time and distance used in the Hubble law are not the same as the x and t used in special relativity, and this often leads to confusion...

 

The relationships between the Hubble law distance and velocity (Dnow & v) and the redshift z are given below:

[math]v = H_0D_{now}[/math]

[math]D_{now} = (c/H_0)\ln{(1+z)}[/math]

[math]1+z = exp(v/c)[/math]

Note that the redshift-velocity law is not the special relativistic Doppler shift law

[math]1+z = \sqrt{\frac{1+v/c}{1-v/c}}[/math]

which only applies to special relativistic coordinates, not to cosmological coordinates.

 

Cosmology Tutorial - Part 2

 

~modest

[Kharakov]

My understanding is that you can model redshift as recession with one coordinate choice or you can model it with expanding space with another coordinate choice. Essentially: either galaxies are redshifted because they have a recession velocity or they are redshifted because space between them expands. I don't see how you could apply both.

Hi :confused:,

 

That appears to be 2 ways of looking at the same thing: the recession velocity of distant galaxies is due to the expansion of space between them (they are directly related values).

 

To be clear (and this is not directed at anyone's comments, but rather to draw attention back to the main topic), the decrease in wavelength to space ratio is still present whether or not there is a redshift (or blueshift) due to an observer's velocity.

 

As space is increasing size (metric expansion of space) and the wavelength of light emitted does not change in transit, the ratio of the wavelength of light to the size of space is getting smaller as the size of space increases.

[modest]

As space is increasing size (metric expansion of space) and the wavelength of light emitted does not change in transit, the ratio of the wavelength of light to the size of space is getting smaller as the size of space increases.

 

Wavelength increases with expansion. See the first link in my last post.

 

~modest

[Kharakov]

Wavelength increases with expansion. See the first link in my last post.

I've covered that: wavelength increase is due to recession velocity (which in turn is due to expansion).

 

Recession velocity redshift (increase in wavelength) has nothing to do with the ratio of the wavelength of a photon to the size of space.

 

The original point is this: that as space expands, and a photons wavelength stays the same, the photons wavelength becomes smaller in comparison to the "size" of space.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

 

If by definition the universe is all.

 

Where does space expand into?

 

How can space without matter expand?

 

What does the expansion?

[sanctus]

The original point is this: that as space expands, and a photons wavelength stays the same, the photons wavelength becomes smaller in comparison to the "size" of space.

 

Well, if the photons' wavelength stayed constant I would agree, but this does not seem to be the case.

[Kharakov]

If by definition the universe is all.

 

Where does space expand into?

Even if the universe is defined as the whole (all), all is not just space: it is space and matter.

How can space without matter expand?

I don't know. Really, the expansion of space is relative to the size of matter.

[Kharakov]

Well, if the photons' wavelength stayed constant I would agree, but this does not seem to be the case.

How so? A photon's wavelength does not change in transit, rather the Hubble redshift is due to our recession velocity from the photon's source.