tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post6605253726972224472..comments2017-12-14T11:10:57.132-08:00Comments on Physics from the edge: Strong evidence for MiHsC/QIMike McCullochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-71585671098559075722016-10-29T14:18:24.862-07:002016-10-29T14:18:24.862-07:00Another article very recent supports your predicti...Another article very recent supports your prediction:<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07663v1.pdf<br /><br />“The residuals are again small (inset panel), but show evidence of a slight but systematic redshift dependence (the mean residual increases slightly with redshift, but remains within the observational error)”.<br /><br />Now there are four findings that confirm one of the most key predictions of MiHsC, that further back in time the minimum acceleration, a_min=2c^2/(Hubble scale), was higher, since the Hubble scale was smaller, so ancient (high redshift) galaxies should have greater spin for less visible mass:<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.6115v2.pdf<br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05003v2.pdf<br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.06183v1.pdf<br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07663v1.pdf<br /><br />Seems the fight done by dark-matterists against McGaugh article about MoND is confirming MiHsC!!!<br />airenaturalhttps://airenatural.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-6101514608172946602016-10-28T19:07:45.977-07:002016-10-28T19:07:45.977-07:00An alternative red-shift cosmic scale relationship...An alternative red-shift cosmic scale relationship comes from the R_h=c.t cosmology, studied by Fulvio Melia over the past few years. It's a standard FRW cosmology, but flat at all times (until the very early Universe) rather than for just the coincidental period when we happen to be observing. Thus the cosmic radius (or Hubble radius) is the product of speed of light and the current cosmic time - so at present it's 13.8 giga-lightyears. The radius scales to the red-shift by R = Ro/(1+z) with Ro being the radius right now. Thus at z = 1, the cosmos is half its current size.<br /><br />Melia has a whole bunch of papers and preprints on the theory, linked from his page:<br /><br />http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~melia/publications.htmlqraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-14609786878654304392016-10-28T16:07:27.476-07:002016-10-28T16:07:27.476-07:00Hi Mike, searching for real data, not just model d...Hi Mike, searching for real data, not just model data, seems the most reliable source is SDSS database in<br /> <br />http://www.sdss.org/dr13/spectro/galaxy_portsmouth/ <br /><br />They have stellar kinematics up to redshifts z=2 and based on this data there are works like this one:<br /> <br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.6115v2.pdf<br /><br />In this reference we can see in Figure 6 (composed of 6 subgraphs) that in the upper bin 0.75 < z < 2.00 the average velocity is clearly higher than in the lower bin 0.00 < z < 0.15. In the intermediate bins the velocity is around 240 km/sec with some good confidence.<br /><br />Maybe an experimental work could be testing if this data fits well with predicted MiHsC formulae. A simple calculation to convert redshifts in universe diameter yields the following dimensions ( http://home.fnal.gov/~gnedin/cc/ )<br /><br />Redshift z = 0.15 is 86% of the age of the universe today, scale factor 0.87<br />Redshift z = 0.45 is 65% of the age of the universe today, scale factor 0.69<br />Redshift z = 0.75 is 51% of the age of the universe today, scale factor 0.571<br /> <br />So effects of MiHsC in the sense of an increased average stellar velocity for a smaller universe radius can be noticed in principle for redshifts higher than 0.45. This completely rules out MOND and goes clearly in favour of MiHsC (of course a dark-matter enthusiast will propose a tweaked explanation saying that there was a bigger amount of dark matter in the early universe… or that the dark matter was concentrated in so precise way to make fits this data).<br /> <br />Further conclusions could be extracted by processing the 3829 objects of the subgraph that lies in the bin 0.75 < z < 2.00 and splitting it in two bins, let`s say centred in<br /><br />Redshift z = 1 is 43% of the age of the universe today, scale factor 0.50 <br />Redshift z = 1.75 is 27% of the age of the universe today, scale factor 0.364<br /> <br />To do it properly I think is necessary to first determine the MiHsC relation that links redshift_z versus universe_diameter versus minimum_MiHsC_acceleration_parameter versus stellar_velocity and do statistical processing on the full SDSS database:<br /><br />https://data.sdss.org/datamodel/files/BOSS_GALAXY_REDUX/GALAXY_VERSION/portsmouth_emlinekin.html<br /><br />If the resulting average star velocities fit well in your prediction, something big is really in your hand!!!<br />airenaturalhttps://airenatural.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-57565974258481029592016-10-28T03:23:51.412-07:002016-10-28T03:23:51.412-07:00As I noted in another context, when it comes to mo...As I noted in another context, when it comes to models the GIGO Principle applies!qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-92182753872710718412016-10-28T03:15:20.369-07:002016-10-28T03:15:20.369-07:00airenatural: I need to look into this more, becaus...airenatural: I need to look into this more, because the Fig 2 in the paper you pointed out is actually model data. However, I suspect the model has been tuned to reflect some real data. I just need the real data.. Never easy is it?Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-6544384108584815612016-10-28T01:57:50.925-07:002016-10-28T01:57:50.925-07:00Hi Mike, I'm desperate to read your new post.....Hi Mike, I'm desperate to read your new post... Can not stand waiting!!!airenaturalhttps://airenatural.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-85286202597848412802016-10-26T14:08:03.767-07:002016-10-26T14:08:03.767-07:00Holy Cow! A whole new scientific discovery in a bl...Holy Cow! A whole new scientific discovery in a blog conversation!qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-82577912592907843432016-10-24T15:11:00.783-07:002016-10-24T15:11:00.783-07:00airenatural: Eureka! MiHsC fits! Thanks for pointi...airenatural: Eureka! MiHsC fits! Thanks for pointing out Fig 2.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-8635763645373306322016-10-24T14:28:47.892-07:002016-10-24T14:28:47.892-07:00Hi Mike,
This article https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.0...Hi Mike,<br />This article https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.06183v1.pdf is dealing with the same idea of the other one that Tom Short is citing in this post and also questions MOND, saying that the parameter of minimum acceleration is different for older galaxies. Check please inside the figure 2 where you can see the original McGaugh curve but for redshifts up to z = 2. <br />I suggest checking the data in this figure 2 against MiHsC, by estimating the radius of the universe at epochs where redshifts seen from our point of observation are z = 0.5, z=1 and z=2. Or you can apply your fitting formulae to McGaugh data, separating the 2693 points if they have the z parameter and check. If it works, Eureka! <br />Congratulations for your blog.<br />airenaturalhttps://airenatural.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-18335102337776163142016-10-24T13:49:33.530-07:002016-10-24T13:49:33.530-07:00Hi Mike,
I noticed you got past the gate-keepers o...Hi Mike,<br />I noticed you got past the gate-keepers of Orthodoxy at the arXiv too...<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06787<br /><br />Hopefully it'll invite discussion of your ideas.qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-31170568447937387372016-10-24T03:08:29.820-07:002016-10-24T03:08:29.820-07:00not quite the same track, but also interesting reg...not quite the same track, but also interesting regarding the "standard model"<br />http://newatlas.com/universe-expansion-not-accelerating/46078/ <br />and<br />http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596Max Karglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787786897892139300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-43141043440898336252016-10-23T03:34:13.808-07:002016-10-23T03:34:13.808-07:00Magnus: As you know, the minimum acceleration pred...Magnus: As you know, the minimum acceleration predicted by MiHsC is 2c^2/cosmicscale, predicting higher, earlier accelerations. You may be interested to read my paper here:<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303<br /><br />where the 'apparent' dark mass (what appears to be dark mass, but is actually an effect of MiHsC) is inversely correlated with the cosmic scale, so early galaxies should spin faster (as seen in the data, see the paper mentioned in Tom Short's comment). One uncertainty here is whether 'c' should be a constant, or should also accelerate from t=0. I also wrote a 'toy cosmology' paper which is here<br /><br />http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/2/1/81Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-78572520617550088462016-10-23T03:20:48.715-07:002016-10-23T03:20:48.715-07:00Tom: Many thanks. I'll look at this paper in d...Tom: Many thanks. I'll look at this paper in detail, because MiHsC does indeed predict fast-spinning early galaxies, as they have seen. This could be something of an experimentum crucis.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-57459732672096128662016-10-22T16:18:51.297-07:002016-10-22T16:18:51.297-07:00Mike,
I've been following your writings with ...Mike,<br /><br />I've been following your writings with quite some interest for some time. This is the first time I really see you addressing the issue that the Hubble diameter is changing with time, which means that MiHsC will produce different effects at different times since the Big Bang. <br /><br />I've been thinking about fiddling around with your equations with a non-constant value for the Hubble horizon, to see what happens over time, but never gotten around to it. Have you written anything about this that I have missed?<br /><br />/MagnusMagnus Ihse Bursiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05093151336579053558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-26748575781113942032016-10-22T11:31:32.179-07:002016-10-22T11:31:32.179-07:00The following paper on early galaxies is interesti...The following paper on early galaxies is interesting.<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05003<br /><br />It shows a mismatch with MOND. If I'm reading it right, these galaxies show a bigger accelleration effect in the early universe as you predicted in another blog post. Might be worth more exploration...<br /><br />(Hopefully, I'm not too off-topic.)Tom Shorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11040735264408542307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-84038064398157036582016-10-21T04:12:25.315-07:002016-10-21T04:12:25.315-07:00Indeed, quantum mechanics already assumes waves ar...Indeed, quantum mechanics already assumes waves are not valid at these tiny scales.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-34458099205744520352016-10-21T03:49:04.793-07:002016-10-21T03:49:04.793-07:00It agrees with Plank temperature which is about 1....It agrees with Plank temperature which is about 1.41×10^32K. But no MiHsC involved here?<br /><br /><br /><br />Czekohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04231020181834141834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-32094053685261801332016-10-21T03:31:15.845-07:002016-10-21T03:31:15.845-07:00Czeko: What a great idea! I should apply for fundi...Czeko: What a great idea! I should apply for funding to use gold paper :) About the maximum temperature: good point. Assuming that waves of radiation shorter than a Planck length cannot be observed and therefore cannot exist, and using Wien's law, T=Beta.h.c/kL, gives a maximum temperature: T=1.8x10^32K. Hot!Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-36542141252839946572016-10-21T02:54:16.665-07:002016-10-21T02:54:16.665-07:00Mike, you should use more expensive sheet of paper...Mike, you should use more expensive sheet of paper. :)<br /><br />OOT, do MiHsC has something to say about highest temperature? If it defines a lower temperature in the pK range linked to minimal possible acceleration, there should be an upper bound. Any number?<br /><br /><br /><br />Czekohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04231020181834141834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-8819708440628141282016-10-21T01:27:24.945-07:002016-10-21T01:27:24.945-07:00qraal: A good paper: they are testing the dark mat...qraal: A good paper: they are testing the dark matter hypothesis a little, but dark matter is so vague that the mainstream will just invent a new type that can fit this null result as well and request millions in funding to go look for it. Nice setup. I wonder how many more millions must be spent on huge dark matter detectors to defend the old theory? MiHsC/QI predicts galaxy rotation just from the speed of light and the cosmic diameter, on a little piece of paper worth about 2 pence!Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-10898818965801455332016-10-19T08:12:26.289-07:002016-10-19T08:12:26.289-07:00Jacob: About your comment re gravity disappearing ...Jacob: About your comment re gravity disappearing at 0K. MiHsC does not allow 0K because then the waves radiated would be larger than the cosmos and so unobservable. It predicts a minimum temperature, which is in the pK range.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-14521932780121859072016-10-19T03:55:51.372-07:002016-10-19T03:55:51.372-07:00Interesting preprint today:
https://arxiv.org/abs...Interesting preprint today:<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.05327<br /><br />Looking for dark matter trails in colliding galaxy clusters<br /><br />David Harvey, Andrew Robertson, Richard Massey, Jean-Paul Kneib<br /><br />(Submitted on 17 Oct 2016)<br /><br />If dark matter interacts, even weakly, via non-gravitational forces, simulations predict that it will be preferentially scattered towards the trailing edge of the halo during collisions between galaxy clusters. This will temporarily create a non-symmetric mass profile, with a trailing over-density along the direction of motion. To test this hypothesis, we fit (and subtract) symmetric halos to the weak gravitational data of 72 merging galaxy clusters observed with the Hubble Space Telescope. We convert the shear directly into excess {\kappa} and project in to a one dimensional profile. We generate numerical simulations and find that the one dimensional profile is well described with simple Gaussian approximations. We detect the weak lensing signal of trailing gas at a 4{\sigma} confidence, finding a mean gas fraction of Mgas/Mdm = 0.13 +/- 0.035. <i><b>We find no evidence for scattered dark matter particles with a estimated scattering fraction of f = 0.03 +/- 0.05.</b></i> Finally we find that if we can reduce the statistical error on the positional estimate of a single dark matter halo to <2.5", then we will be able to detect a scattering fraction of 10% at the 3{\sigma} level with current surveys. This poten- tially interesting new method can provide an important independent test for other complimentary studies of the self-interaction cross-section of dark matter.qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-36037480176001272212016-10-19T02:32:14.528-07:002016-10-19T02:32:14.528-07:00to add to my previous comment: I think any new, ol...to add to my previous comment: I think any new, old or revived theory of gravity will have to fit with Einsteins concept of curvature of spacetime.jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569343911386137690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-55864576099699141742016-10-19T01:51:38.338-07:002016-10-19T01:51:38.338-07:00Mike: so the universe is currently expanding due t...Mike: so the universe is currently expanding due to (electromagnetic?) "heat" with cosmic wavelengths. (That would mean super low energy radiation with rather high density?) - and mass held together by mutual shading. That would imply no "gravity" in absolute 0 Kelvin. Should be testable even in an earth based laboratory...<br />Interestingly a "cold" universe will not collapse because of gravitational attraction, as there would be no such thing.<br />The relation between size, density, distance, etc. will be accounted for when defending an interpretation of gravity as a sort of shading. Should be hard!jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569343911386137690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-79641419429978485522016-10-19T01:02:34.316-07:002016-10-19T01:02:34.316-07:00Jacob: Yes, in the MiHsC paradigm gravity is not a...Jacob: Yes, in the MiHsC paradigm gravity is not a fundamental force, just an emergent phenomenon. For example, gravity can be derived from the uncertainty principle, see my blog and paper here:<br /><br />http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/gravity-from-quantum-mechanics.html<br /><br />and maybe also as an Unruh sheltering, which I haven't managed to prove mathematically yet. I get maddeningly close, but it's not right yet.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.com