Hawking's Last Theorem

[Stargazer]

On 5/5/2018 at 3:32 AM, longview said:

I do not rule out shifting of blue or red.  Of course stellar objects would recede or approach each other.  We could have shifting from either relative speeds of objects or aging due to travel over great distances or a combination of both.

As I indicated either, redshifting is either due to speed of travel away from us, or because distance is what causes the redshift.  You can't have it both ways.

Quote

Nothing material will last forever.  The scriptures speak of transformations of planetary bodies or stars as a "rolling" or "unrolling" whatever that means.  The CMB (cosmic microwave background) might NOT be a remnant of the Big Bang but could turn out to be the final fading of photons coming from a certain distance away (the radius of the lifespan of a photon).  Science has not yet made a final determination.

I don't know what you mean by "rolling" or "unrolling", and if there's anything we know about the scriptures, sometimes they speak literally, and sometimes figuratively.  Which is it this time? And your "whatever that means" tells a tale, doesn't it?

"Science has not yet made a final determination" you say. Are you referring to the life of a photon?  You are still hung up on tired light.  

Try this: (found HERE ) : 

Any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:

• admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band
• not exhibit blurring
• follow the detailed Hubble-relation observed with Supernova data (see accelerating universe)
• explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.

As part of a broader alternative cosmology, other observations that need explanation include:

• the detail observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation
• the abundance of light elements
• large-scale structure statistics

To date, no established mechanism to produce such a drop in energy has been proposed that reproduces all the observations associated with the redshift-distance relation. Scattering by known mechanisms from gas or dust does not reproduce the observations. For example, scattering by any mechanism would blur an object more than observed. In general, cosmologists consider classical tired light models to have too many problems to be worth serious consideration.[11] Tired light alone does not provide a full cosmological explanation and so cannot reproduce all the successes of the standard big bang cosmology. No tired light theory is known that by itself correctly accounts for the observed time dilation of distant supernovae light curves [12], the black body spectrum or anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, and the observed change in the morphology, number count, and surface brightness of high redshift galaxies and quasars. Furthermore, the fact that the age of the oldest stars is roughly equal to the inverse of the Hubble constant emerges naturally from a Big Bang cosmology, but is an unexplained coincidence with most tired light models.

In 2008, Blondin et al. showed that even processes that take macroscopic amounts of time such as various elapsed times are slowed down by the same redshift factor as the light frequency.[13]

 

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 5/5/2018 at 5:16 AM, RevTestament said:

Thank you. I will admit that I am better at the gospel than physics. However, I am not totally uneducated in physics and astronomy. i realize radiation is not entropy. That is why I put "form" in quotes. Radiation is essentially direct evidence of entropy. It experiences entropy. Here is a paper talking about radiation "containing" entropy as well as energy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6

Light is radiation. Radiation experiences entropy.

I'm sorry, but matter experiences entropy, too.  Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system. And in any closed system, entropy (or disorder) always increases, never the other way around (if it deceases -- especially over a long term -- it is not a closed system).  Putting "form" in quotes doesn't change the fact that they are not related in the way you are suggesting.  It would be like saying that heat is a form of temperature.  They are related in that temperature is a measure of the degree or amount of heat, but it is not a "form" of heat.  Heat has a temperature.  Radiation has entropy.  But the latter is not a "form" of the former.

The article you cite is interesting, but doesn't support anything that you have been claiming.  I would have expected there to be entropy in radiation, radiation being a manifestation of energy, and energy is, of course, positively entropic -- meaning that it tends towards maximum disorder over time.  That's not surprising at all.  What makes me wonder is this: do you not realize that the entropy of radiation (in fact, of the entire universe) leads to the inescapable conclusion that it all winds down, eventually, to what is referred to as the "heat death of the universe"?  No matter how long it takes -- and it will take a very very long time -- the universe is doomed to go cold and dark.  That is as far from steady state as its possible to get.  And I realize that you've hedged this with "somewhat", but it's like this: you are either pregnant or you're not.  "Somewhat" isn't an option.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Stargazer

[longview]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I indicated either, redshifting is either due to speed of travel away from us, or because distance is what causes the redshift.  You can't have it both ways.

Why have you ruled it out?  The Doppler Effect is observable in any wave phenomena regardless of whether its water waves, sound waves, photons, etc.  In the same events, we see the the waves losing energy steadily as they propagate further away from the source (cause) and gradually "shifting" from original frequency to lower frequencies.  It is possible to measure both aspects in the same medium.  Photons have a long lifespan.

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

To date, no established mechanism to produce such a drop in energy has been proposed that reproduces all the observations associated with the redshift-distance relation. Scattering by known mechanisms from gas or dust does not reproduce the observations. For example, scattering by any mechanism would blur an object more than observed. In general, cosmologists consider classical tired light models to have too many problems to be worth serious consideration.[11] Tired light alone does not provide a full cosmological explanation and so cannot reproduce all the successes of the standard big bang cosmology. No tired light theory is known that by itself correctly accounts for the observed time dilation of distant supernovae light curves [12], the black body spectrum or anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, and the observed change in the morphology, number count, and surface brightness of high redshift galaxies and quasars. Furthermore, the fact that the age of the oldest stars is roughly equal to the inverse of the Hubble constant emerges naturally from a Big Bang cosmology, but is an unexplained coincidence with most tired light models.

In 2008, Blondin et al. showed that even processes that take macroscopic amounts of time such as various elapsed times are slowed down by the same redshift factor as the light frequency.[13]

"Tired Light" is not a term I would use to describe the limited lifespan of elements.  I believe every element (including photons and neutrinos) have a limited lifespan and that scientists do not have the last word on their duration or what recycling occurs between different energy forms in however many dimensions.  I remain interested in knowing whether CMB represents fading glow of photons at the end of life.

The scattering effect is not material to my conjecture.  It would not matter if blurring occurs due to gas and dust (merely provides a glow effect).  There could be other mechanisms that account for the gradual/steady drop of energy (represented by lower frequencies).  As I have indicated in previous threads, there could be infinitesimal components in the photon emitting at a steady rate (decay) causing the photon to lose energy and thus shifting to lower frequencies.

[JayneAdelle]

On 5/3/2018 at 8:58 AM, Stargazer said:

I enjoyed giving this topic that title (harking back to Fermat's Last Theorem).  Although in the case of Fermat, it wasn't really his last theorem, just one that was discovered mentioned by a notation in one of his books, after his death).

Well, Steven Hawking says this (from the article in The Telegraph😞

"Stephen Hawking has revealed from beyond the grave his final scientific theory - that the universe is a hologram... The new theory embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the  apparently "solid" world around us - and the dimension of time - is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface... Applied to inflation, the newly published theory suggests that time and "the beginning" of the universe arose holographically from an unknowable state outside the Big Bang."

I think one would be advised to read the paper itself, rather than trying to take too much at face value from the article in The Telegraph.  However, it might be a bit dense, and beyond the background of many, if not most people. I wish the article had included a link to the paper. As it turns out, The Register article on the same subject does include a link to the paper, including this comment:

"The paper looked at one of the enduring challenges Hawking created for himself – how to resolve the conflict between how Albert Einstein's models of the universe work (gravity, for example, at the very large scale), and how quantum mechanics works at the smallest scale."

The idea that the universe is a hologram is quite intriguing.  It does tend to provide some support to my own theory, which is that the universe is completely imaginary, and we are all interacting with an elaborate virtual reality construct that God set up to test and educate His children.  Because, why would God really need to create an actual universe when He could just as well as create a virtual universe?  It would be a lot less complex, and a lot more manageable.

When it comes to the paper itself, I'm sure we'll all just "get it" once we have read it through.  I dare you to comprehend the abstract:

 

 

Stargazer, I also have the idea that this physical reality is illusory. I have often pondered why God would bother with all this complex stuff. I've come up with some theories of my own that I'm dying to discuss with someone who delves much more deeply than the "storybook" understanding of the Plan. I don't think it's about God "testing" his children, though.

[snowflake]

On 5/3/2018 at 8:58 AM, Stargazer said:

I enjoyed giving this topic that title (harking back to Fermat's Last Theorem).  Although in the case of Fermat, it wasn't really his last theorem, just one that was discovered mentioned by a notation in one of his books, after his death).

Well, Steven Hawking says this (from the article in The Telegraph😞

"Stephen Hawking has revealed from beyond the grave his final scientific theory - that the universe is a hologram... The new theory embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the  apparently "solid" world around us - and the dimension of time - is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface... Applied to inflation, the newly published theory suggests that time and "the beginning" of the universe arose holographically from an unknowable state outside the Big Bang."

I think one would be advised to read the paper itself, rather than trying to take too much at face value from the article in The Telegraph.  However, it might be a bit dense, and beyond the background of many, if not most people. I wish the article had included a link to the paper. As it turns out, The Register article on the same subject does include a link to the paper, including this comment:

"The paper looked at one of the enduring challenges Hawking created for himself – how to resolve the conflict between how Albert Einstein's models of the universe work (gravity, for example, at the very large scale), and how quantum mechanics works at the smallest scale."

The idea that the universe is a hologram is quite intriguing.  It does tend to provide some support to my own theory, which is that the universe is completely imaginary, and we are all interacting with an elaborate virtual reality construct that God set up to test and educate His children.  Because, why would God really need to create an actual universe when He could just as well as create a virtual universe?  It would be a lot less complex, and a lot more manageable.

When it comes to the paper itself, I'm sure we'll all just "get it" once we have read it through.  I dare you to comprehend the abstract:

 

 

I think there is a ton of scripture that supports this idea of a hologram.......or that we are only privy to see a 4 dimensional universe....lenght X width X height X time.

The fact that angels appear out of nowhere shows that there is some kind of "spiritual universe" we are unable to see.

The Lord Jesus also appeared to the witnesses out of nowhere.....when they were sitting in an enclosed room.

Joseph claimed that God and Jesus appeared to him out of "nowhere" (I don't believe this) but am making a point. 

The mighty angels in Daniel 10.

The "sons of God" and Satan himself appear before God in Job 2....Satan states that he has been walking up and down in the earth.

 

2 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

² And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

The fact that Christ talks of "heaven" and a place where we will be with him.

I am no physics guru but the holographic universe has a lot of merit in scripture! 

 

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

The fact that angels appear out of nowhere shows that there is some kind of "spiritual universe" we are unable to see.

When we consider scriptures like the following:  D&C 110:2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

The fact that the Lord was hovering above the pulpit with His feet resting on paved work of pure gold.  That paved work of pure gold probably was not part of Joseph Smith's environment.  Indicating that the appearance of the Lord was a holographic projection?

What happened at the First Vision?  Was the presence of the adversary real?   Joseph felt it powerfully and thought for a moment that he was doomed to sudden destruction.  But the appearance of the Father and the Son may have been a holographic projection?

[RevTestament]

On 5/3/2018 at 5:11 PM, Stargazer said:

As noted above, it is not redshifted in response to gravity. Gravity does bend light's path -- Einstein and others predicted this, and it was shown to the true in the solar eclipse of 1919.  Your astronomer Zwicky first proposed that galaxies (being extremely massy) would act as gravitational lenses, and this was demonstrated to be true just a few years after his death.  But gravity would only temporarily slow light down -- if at all, since the "speed of gravity" itself is the "speed of light".  

I appear to have found I was wrong, and I suppose you too. According to this Space.com article there are three kinds of redshift. There is a recent(after I took astronomy) finding about

Quote

"gravitational redshift," which happens when light is shifted due to the massive amount of matter inside of a galaxy.

This latter redshift is the subtlest of the three, but in 2011 scientists were able to identify it on a universe-size scale. Astronomers did a statistical analysis of a large catalog known as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and found that gravitational redshift does happen — exactly in line with Einstein's theory of general relativity. This work was published in a Nature paper. https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html

So, if gravity can redshift light, perhaps there are other forces/properties here at work, which we don't fully understand, to cause redshift besides just the "doppler effect." It appears light can "lose energy" or change frequency over great spans of time and space travel. Thus, not all redshift would be attributable to expansion away from us.

Edited May 7, 2018 by RevTestament

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I appear to have found I was wrong, and I suppose you too. According to this Space.com article there are three kinds of redshift. There is a recent(after I took astronomy) finding about

So, if gravity can redshift light, perhaps there are other forces/properties here at work, which we don't fully understand, to cause redshift besides just the "doppler effect." It appears light can "lose energy" or change frequency over great spans of time and space travel. Thus, not all redshift would be attributable to expansion away from us.

Sweet!  Thanks for sharing that! It does make sense that gravity could redshift light, and I am glad to know something new!

If gravity can redshift, it has to be able to blueshift as well.  And oh my gosh does THAT make things a bit unpredictable!  Sounds like a fun thing to do research on!

But this still does not eliminate red/blueshift due to motion.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Stargazer

[RevTestament]

43 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Sweet!  Thanks for sharing that! It does make sense that gravity could redshift light, and I am glad to know something new!

If gravity can redshift, it has to be able to blueshift as well.  And oh my gosh does THAT make things a bit unpredictable!  Sounds like a fun thing to do research on!

But this still does not eliminate red/blueshift due to motion.

Nope. It doesn't. But it does directly support my original suspicion: "So as light passes through space, it may be affected by gravity, "dark matter" in space, or other phenomena or forces we do not completely understand, to cause it to redshift." This of course serves to make the Big Bang Hypothesis all the more tenuous. I continue to become more confidant that as we learn more about light that a somewhat static model of the universe will continue to make more sense. As time and new discoveries occur they should support a hypothesis. The problem with the big bang theory is that new discoveries and observations don't seem to support it. That doesn't bode well for its future. Let's just say I am no longer convinced by it, and do not believe it accords with scripture either.

I wish God had taught us about the origins of the universe, but alas it seems that is a secret as of yet. 

Moses 1:31-32

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him ^aface to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own ^bpurpose have I made these things. Here is ^cwisdom and it remaineth in me.

As much as I know, I continue to have more questions. I do seem to enjoy pondering these things, but I doubt God will answer them all.

[Stargazer]

This isn't really related to the OP, but it's my thread, so I'm adding it in there.  It is somewhat related, perhaps.

https://www.livescience.com/62523-physicists-crowdsource-a-reality-check.html

Here's an excerpt -- the first few paragraphs...

Biggest Test Yet Shows Einstein Was Wrong About 'Spooky Action at a Distance'

A groundbreaking quantum experiment recently confirmed the reality of "spooky action-at-a-distance" — the bizarre phenomenon that Einstein hated — in which linked particles seemingly communicate faster than the speed of light.

And all it took was 12 teams of physicists in 10 countries, more than 100,000 volunteer gamers and over 97 million data units — all of which were randomly generated by hand.

The volunteers operated from locations around the world, playing an online video game on Nov. 30, 2016, that produced millions of bits, or "binary digits" — the smallest unit of computer data.

Physicists then used those random bits in so-called Bell tests, designed to show that entangled particles, or particles whose states are mysteriously linked, can somehow transfer information faster than light can travel, and that these particles seem to "choose" their states at the moment they are measured. [What Is Quantum Mechanics?]

Their findings, recently reported in a new study, contradicted Einstein's description of a state known as "local realism," study co-author Morgan Mitchell, a professor of quantum optics at the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Barcelona, Spain, told Live Science in an email.

"We showed that Einstein’s world-view of local realism, in which things have properties whether or not you observe them, and no influence travels faster than light, cannot be true — at least one of those things must be false," Mitchell said.

[DennisTate]

I could be wrong... but chapter 13 of Stephen Hawking's Universe, 

entitled The Anthropic Principle, had me wondering if Hawking might just be a closet Theist.......

who set us Theists up with an explanation for the evolution of Intelligence in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy........

as opposed to carbon based life in four dimensional space - time where electromagnetism, Gravity, Weak and Strong Nuclear Force are separate from each other.