-1
$\begingroup$

Consider this hypothesis:

  1. Two objects A and B, are able to maintain their spatial distance. Object A is near a neutron star, and thus it clock is running at a different speed than object B, and both objects would see red shift. Due to Einstein shift countering that effect, there would be no red shift.

  2. However, if the two objects were running at a different clock, due to an unknown reason that is not nearby gravity - we WOULD see red shift. There would not be Einstein shift to counter that effect. This obviously seems impossible, without those objects having a relative velocity.

The hypothesis is:

All matter was given an initial four-velocity c at The Big Bang, relative to where that matter originated. This velocity was distributed in all four dimensions, space and time. Distant regions of the universe is running at a different clock rate than our local clock rate, and this causes us to observe universal red shift.

A couple of thoughts:

  • Particles that are nearby each other today, would more likely have been given a similar initial space-time direction in The Big Bang.

  • However, integrating the particle velocity in the time dimension since The Big Bang, could yield vastly different ages for different particles.

  • A particle with a vastly different "age", would seem to be be less affected by gravity. This is merely a consequence of the particle having a great distance in the time dimension. Such a particle would be able to pass straight through earth without stopping.

  • Gravity causes particles clock rate to align, in exactly the same way that their spatial velocity aligns.

  • Even though particles are local to each other and following a somewhat synchronized clock, over time their four dimensional distance will increase little by little - while their three dimensional distance might be stable.

  • Gravity depends on particles four dimensional distance, including their "time distance", this predicts a Big Freeze end to the universe.

Is this a hypothesis to pursue? If so, any ideas for how it could be tested?

Particles position in X, Y and Z is the integral of their velocity in X, Y and Z over the course of the universe. I merely claim that particles have a "time position" as well, and that this "time position" is important when calculating gravity over vast distances. Over small distances, the relative "time position" is negligible.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Timaeus, Sebastian Riese, Kyle Kanos, user36790, RedGrittyBrick Oct 12 '15 at 16:09

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Timaeus, Sebastian Riese, Kyle Kanos, Community, RedGrittyBrick
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The time has passed when philosophers could discuss atoms , or "fire" "water" "earth" "air", or the music of the spheres creating nature around us. Ever since Laplace/ Newton/etc .. physics is tied up with mathematical models. Mathematics is a strict and self consistent setup. This means one cannot take attributes a la cart when proposing a new paradigm. One has to prove that the old paradigm is embedded or emerges from the new mathematical proposal. Otherwise one is not talking physics , but science fiction. $\endgroup$ – anna v Oct 12 '15 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ @annav I think the questions asks whether or not the stated ideas seem to agree with the existing data well enough to be worth mathematical investigation. I don't understand the purpose of mentioning ancient philosophy here. $\endgroup$ – DanielSank Oct 12 '15 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielSank It is asking for somebody else to check for mathematical consistency to an a la cart hypothesis, which means that the person asking is just hand waving and has no idea of the mathematics involved, just like the ancient philosophers. $\endgroup$ – anna v Oct 12 '15 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ @anna By that reasoning half of the notions I have in my head on a daily basis doing research is "hand waving" just like the ancient philosophers. Note that I'm not saying this post is a good question or appropriate for this site. $\endgroup$ – DanielSank Oct 12 '15 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielSank Hand waving is extremely creative if it is backed up with the tools of the trade, in the case of physics the mathematics. $\endgroup$ – anna v Oct 12 '15 at 16:06
2
$\begingroup$

Thew problem is that your initial assumption:

All matter was given an initial velocity c at The Big Bang

is incorrect. I'm guessing you're thinking of the matter exploding outwards froma point, but this is not how the Big Bang happened. At any time after the Big Bang the velecities obeyed Hubble's Law, though with a variable Hubble parameter that goes to zero as we approach the singularity.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How do you know that matter was not given an initial four-velocity of c, relative to their origin? $\endgroup$ – frodeborli Oct 12 '15 at 11:34
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @frodeborli: what origin? The Big Bang didn't have an origin. It happened everywhere. That's the point of the article I've linked. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Oct 12 '15 at 11:45
  • $\begingroup$ That particle had an origin, and it has a world line that it has traveled. $\endgroup$ – frodeborli Oct 12 '15 at 18:33
0
$\begingroup$

Two objects A and B, are able to maintain their spatial distance. Object A is near a neutron star, and thus it clock is running at a different speed than object B, and both objects would see red shift.

If object A is closer to the neutron star than object B then light from object A will be red shifted when object B sees it and light from object B will be blue shifted when object A sees it. I don't know why you are saying otherwise, are you going to make object B move at high speed to counter this (which is hard if they are maintaining a spatial distance, but maybe you could get them to co orbit the neutron star with object B at a larger radius orbit).

Due to Einstein shift countering that effect, there would be no red shift.

Now it is completely mysterious what you are trying to say. The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift. It cancels when you have two neutron stars and two objects, each object equally close to its corresponding neutron star.

But here is the kicker. The rate a clock ticks in General Relativity is simply proportional to the length of the time like geodesic it travels. There is no way whatsoever to make it tick differently without changing the path of the clock or the curvature of spacetime. So your proposal to change it is just proposing a differently curved spacetime. You can look at different models in General Relativity (even non isotropic ones and non homogenous ones if you don't like an accelerating expansion from some kind of bias against it) or even at alternatives to GR. But the alternatives are constrained (some of them) so don't cross the line into ignoring observational results, that would be truly bad science.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.