Non-Linear QM and Cosmology - Alternative CMBR

[dennislmay]

I have posted a .PDF file of a paper on Physics_Frontier at Yahoogroups.

http://tinyurl.com/8558r9m

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/QHYYT1n9t6ywC0jdLHaxGbwb1G6KqrG7ySu0kaVBpasOl2oQBYKSvKSoJJJwitoro0RZyLUGcvNu_RpfJWwy4Q/CMBR%20-%20Non-Linear%20QM%20Thermalization-v1.pdf

It is my alternative explanation for the CMBR [Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation] which does not involve Big Bang cosmology.

Dennis May

[9thdoctor]

Oh my head! Anyway, I normally wouldn't comment on something like this, since it went well over my head, but there's a typo: 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, "see" where it ought to be "seen". Just trying to help.

[Philip Coates]

Dennis, I clicked on both links and got Document not Found. Can you say in simple English what causes the cosmic background radiation if it is not a humongous explosion?

[dennislmay]

Oh my head! Anyway, I normally wouldn't comment on something like this, since it went well over my head, but there's a typo: 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, "see" where it ought to be "seen". Just trying to help.

Good catch I could have read it 100 times and not seen that mistake.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oMoYTzxJmxJ21H7cFp1DGLwYH_Je86UCBKoIk15p6ViW8gaGuKu2_jWXlMnXCVReRGQl0wVgqF2vLIhrD9Mqrg/CMBR%20-%20Non-Linear%20QM%20Thermalization-v2.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/6u9prjw

New links after correction.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Dennis, I clicked on both links and got Document not Found. Can you say in simple English what causes the cosmic background radiation if it is not a humongous explosion?

I can e-mail copies for anyone having problems with the links: dennislmay@yahoo.com

Simple English - non-linear QM means the CMBR is just a present day black-body radiation from the average temperature of the universe in the extended local area. There

was no expansion of the universe or "humongous explosion". Thermalization at greater than light speeds is allowed in non-linear QM so a near perfect black-body can

be created over a large expanse of space. This also explains anomalous problems with the CMBR related to a lack of lensing in distant CMBR radiation and how the CMBR

fills in behind galaxies after they initially shadow distant radiation.

Dennis May

[9thdoctor]

Good catch I could have read it 100 times and not seen that mistake.

Sure thing. Do you have an opinion of Roger Penrose's latest views?

I try to keep up with popularizations, but have to google words like "anisotropies", so I get bogged down pretty fast reading technical literature.

[GALTGULCH8]

Dennis,

Your statement suggests that a "big bang" type explosion is unnecessary to explain certain background radiation. Do you mean that there indeed was no "big bang" phenomenon at all?

After all I thought the evidence is in that the galaxies are all moving apart, perhaps even accelerating apart, as far as the eye can see with the help of telescopes.

That implies that years ago all the galaxies were closer together, and that before that precursors to the galaxies themselves were even closer. It seems that there might have been a point in time, that all the matter in the universe, or at least all the energy in the universe existed at an infinitesimal point.

I have never understood the idea that even space did not exist but also expanded at the matter and energy expanded, if that is what happened.

I am perfectly content to marvel at it all. I would appreciate any comment you care to make about my amateurish post. I wonder if there is a particular book or author whose ideas on cosmology might be understood by someone who is not schooled in astrophysics or quantum mechanics.

I was taught as well that the laws of thermodynamics hold that matter and energy can neither by created nor destroyed. The big bang seems to encourage the mystics who believe in divine creation.

I can imagine that stuff might have come together culminating in a collapse of whatever existed before. But the notion that perpetual motion machines are impossible mitigates against a collapsing and expanding universe which goes on in that kind of cyclical manner forever. I wonder if there is even a science fiction story in which a civilization manages to find a way to survive and perpetuate itself from one phase to the other?

TIA

[dennislmay]

Do you have an opinion of Roger Penrose's latest views?

I have an opinion - none of it positive.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Dennis,

Your statement suggests that a "big bang" type explosion is unnecessary to explain certain background radiation. Do you mean that there indeed was no "big bang" phenomenon at all?

After all I thought the evidence is in that the galaxies are all moving apart, perhaps even accelerating apart, as far as the eye can see with the help of telescopes.

That implies that years ago all the galaxies were closer together, and that before that precursors to the galaxies themselves were even closer. It seems that there might have been a point in time, that all the matter in the universe, or at least all the energy in the universe existed at an infinitesimal point.

I have never understood the idea that even space did not exist but also expanded at the matter and energy expanded, if that is what happened.

I am perfectly content to marvel at it all. I would appreciate any comment you care to make about my amateurish post. I wonder if there is a particular book or author whose ideas on cosmology might be understood by someone who is not schooled in astrophysics or quantum mechanics.

I was taught as well that the laws of thermodynamics hold that matter and energy can neither by created nor destroyed. The big bang seems to encourage the mystics who believe in divine creation.

I can imagine that stuff might have come together culminating in a collapse of whatever existed before. But the notion that perpetual motion machines are impossible mitigates against a collapsing and expanding universe which goes on in that kind of cyclical manner forever. I wonder if there is even a science fiction story in which a civilization manages to find a way to survive and perpetuate itself from one phase to the other?

TIA

I have read or heard of several science fiction stories where civilizations survive BIg Bang cycles. Interesting science fiction but I'm no fan of the physics.

There is indeed a Hubble constant related to the observed red-shift seen when you look outward into deep space. There is also the observed lenthening of time as you look outward [supernovae take longer to explode]. The assumption of a doppler shift caused by a General Relativity expansion of space became the Big Bang theory based on these observations. Problem is General Relativity fails on galactic scales - thus does not apply to cosmological scales. If you look at the angular size of galaxies - they are not at the distance implied by their red- shift applied to the BIg Bang theory. In fact observation of the angular sizes of galaxies demonstrates the universe is not expanding at all. Not only that you have to suspend disbelief on a number of issues to believe the Big Bang theory - space expands but not the objects composing space, all the anti-matter just disappeared for no apparent reason, inflation turns on and off and on again to make the numbers work, dark matter and dark energy are created to make the numbers work, black holes only form when convenient - not when things were very compact and everything should have been at densities where black holes form, no matter how far back you look some galaxies are very old, nearby are some very young galaxies with virtually no evidence of previous generations of stars, no first generation red dwarf stars yet they should be everywhere - the list goes on and on and on. The simple replacement for the expanding universe is a universe in which the speed of time is slowly increasing. Thus you look outward and you see a universal red-shift and objects moving more slowly. The angular size problem goes away because the universe is not expanding. Old galaxies far away and new ones nearby are no mystery - the universe is very very old. The slowly increasing rate of time is another non-linear QM effect. Once you allow non-linear QM - unsolved mysteries no long require suspending disbelief and embrace of the Big Bang theory.

Dennis May

[BaalChatzaf]

Dennis, I clicked on both links and got Document not Found. Can you say in simple English what causes the cosmic background radiation if it is not a humongous explosion?

I can e-mail copies for anyone having problems with the links: dennislmay@yahoo.com

Simple English - non-linear QM means the CMBR is just a present day black-body radiation from the average temperature of the universe in the extended local area. There

was no expansion of the universe or "humongous explosion". Thermalization at greater than light speeds is allowed in non-linear QM so a near perfect black-body can

be created over a large expanse of space. This also explains anomalous problems with the CMBR related to a lack of lensing in distant CMBR radiation and how the CMBR

fills in behind galaxies after they initially shadow distant radiation.

Dennis May

Aside from the latest OPERA claims. do you have any experimental evidence that anything can go faster than light? I mean experimental evidence that is backed up by at least two independent experimental undertakings? Even the folks who have done OPERA is still waiting for corroboration.

To put a point on it, where is the experimental corroboration of your claims? I am not seeing it. Can you help me out here?

In addition you would have to show that non-linear quantum theory can reproduce every single prediction produced by the linear theory. Have you done so? I am not seeing it. Can you help me out here?: The paper you sent has hardly any mathematical presentation to it. To show that your approach can match the experimental merit of the other theories would require gobs and gobs of mathematical derivation and oodles of numerical data derived from measurements. I am not seeing it. Can you help me out here?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Dennis, I clicked on both links and got Document not Found. Can you say in simple English what causes the cosmic background radiation if it is not a humongous explosion?

I can e-mail copies for anyone having problems with the links: dennislmay@yahoo.com

Simple English - non-linear QM means the CMBR is just a present day black-body radiation from the average temperature of the universe in the extended local area. There

was no expansion of the universe or "humongous explosion". Thermalization at greater than light speeds is allowed in non-linear QM so a near perfect black-body can

be created over a large expanse of space. This also explains anomalous problems with the CMBR related to a lack of lensing in distant CMBR radiation and how the CMBR

fills in behind galaxies after they initially shadow distant radiation.

Dennis May

Aside from the latest OPERA claims. do you have any experimental evidence that anything can go faster than light? I mean experimental evidence that is backed up by at least two independent experimental undertakings? Even the folks who have done OPERA is still waiting for corroboration.

To put a point on it, where is the experimental corroboration of your claims? I am not seeing it. Can you help me out here?

In addition you would have to show that non-linear quantum theory can reproduce every single prediction produced by the linear theory. Have you done so? I am not seeing it. Can you help me out here?: The paper you sent has hardly any mathematical presentation to it. To show that your approach can match the experimental merit of the other theories would require gobs and gobs of mathematical derivation and oodles of numerical data derived from measurements. I am not seeing it. Can you help me out here?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Over ten years ago Dr. Gregory S. Duane already did all the heavy lifting involving non-linear versus linear theory in the area of predictions. Before him J.S. Bell already did all the heavy lifting to demonstrate the requirement of superluminal signaling for theories like Duanes - and Duane re-proves it as well. The topic of non-linear superluminal QM energy transfer was quite popular in the late 1990's to mid 2000's time frame then petered out. Many paper exist discussing that topic. There is not yet multiple source independent experiments providing evidence of superluminal energy transfer. We are currently at the stage of attempting to provide motivaton for such experiments. If you don't have a motivation to design experiments to look it will not be seen. The motivation should increase as more and more unexplained observations fit the non-linear QM assumption. I have several other explanations of observations I need to present in that respect but you have to start somewhere. As far as modeling a good place to start is the CMBR shadowing behind galaxies filling in with distance from the 2006 source mentioned in the paper. Later researchers showed it fills in at different rates in different frequency ranges of the CMBR until at greater distance when it fills in completely. It takes time and I have several other things to present before having time to do such modeling.

Dennis

[9thdoctor]

There is not yet multiple source independent experiments providing evidence of superluminal energy transfer. We are currently at the stage of attempting to provide motivaton for such experiments.

This called to mind a classic moment from Feynman.

[BaalChatzaf]

There is not yet multiple source independent experiments providing evidence of superluminal energy transfer. We are currently at the stage of attempting to provide motivaton for such experiments.

This called to mind a classic moment from Feynman.

Now you know why I dearly loved Richard Feynman. He was the greatest physics teacher of the 20 th century. There was none better and few who could even come close.

Ba'al Chatzaf