Peer reviewed and confirmed, the proof of Einsteins General Theory of Relativity on Cosomlogical Scales is extremely important. We've had other proofs through the finding of "Gravity Lenses" where light from a distant galaxy for instance is lensed through a cluster of galaxies allowing us to view an object much farther than we normally would be able to but now we have detected that light is actually slowed down by gravity. The results have also strongly confirmed through secondary evidence the existence of Dark Matter.
Einstein was right... Einstein's space 'ripples' confirmed Aug. 28 (UPI) -- Entangled white dwarf stars have proved Einstein's theory that moving objects create subtle ripples in the fabric of space-time, U.S. astronomers say.
Staring into the past... Hubble Reveals Primitive Galaxies Near Cosmic Dawn December 12, 2012 WASHINGTON Astronomers have used NASA's Earth orbiting Hubble Space Telescope to reveal primitive galaxies -- vast clusters of stars -- that are more than 13 billion years old. One of them might be the oldest ever observed. See also: Mystery Properties of Black Holes Revealed December 12th, 2012 - Of all the celestial objects that make up the Universe, nothing is more mysterious than the black hole.
But don't you think that Einstein's theory and predictions have simply generated too many paradoxes? Let's see. All through the decades, the Einstein enthusiasts have maintained that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light or probably even close to it, in the latter case sparing subatomic particles such as neutrinos. This was the fundamental prediction made by the General Theory of Relativity. Subsequently however, observations have been made of quasars, other active galaxies, and of gamma-ray bursts removed from us by 12 or 13 billion years, which travel at 99.9% of the speed of light from us. So how were these observations reconciled with Einstein? The expansion of space of course. So you have a GTofR expert such as Alex Filipenko saying now that the more proximate galaxies don't approach nearly the speed of light, but the more distant galaxies exceed the speed of light relative to us due to the amount of space separating us, and as we all know the space expands, so a cumulative effect of space expansion can create this kind of a surf wave, and far distant objects will ride on top of that surf and perceivably exceed the speed of light limit. But it's not because they travel faster than the speed of light, it's only because space expands. Moreover, the expansion of space itself causes motion of the galaxies, another one of their mantras. But what if you had objects moving away from us and towards us in the same line of sight? Objects move away due to expanding space, while those moving towards us should do so as a consequence of contracting space. And if they are in the same line of sight from us, such as is the case with the Andromeda galaxy and the galaxies behind it, how can the same region of space expand and contract at the same time? But they will say, ha, space can only expand, cannot contract. Andromeda is an oddity (so are numerous other objects within galactic clusters and superclusters I suppose) and it's moving towards us despite the expansion of space. Moreover, the expansion of space can exceed the speed of light, but nothing else in the universe can. Of course this is all far-fetched and difficult to disprove just like the existence of God, because light speed from sources outside of Earth cannot be measured directly but only through blue and red shifts, and also because subatomic particles travelling in excess of the speed of light relative to the detector or a detection medium will convert to energy and/or other particles upon encountering this detection system if they exceed the speed of light by a certain margin. The very assertion of expanding space limits experiments to emitters that are approaching us since any variance from the predicted speed of particles or energy can be dismissed as such - the expansion of space. So then you need to look at subatomic particles whether neutrinos or ones coming in the form of synchrotron radiation emitted from possibly, Andromeda and detected on Earth. Granted, these particles do not readily display red and blue shifts in the manner which the light does. However, if those particles reached our detection medium, say a cloud chamber or a bubble chamber by travelling through nothing but vacuum, then they should display a decay pattern where the combined mass and cumulative velocities of decay particles should exceed in mass-energy terms the mass-energy of the emitted particle travelling at or near the speed of light. Of course here the E=mc2 equation will help out Einstein due to infinities it generates in the value of E. So any spike in the reading for E will lead to interpretation we have been dealing with a more massive initial particle before the collision with a detection medium took place. So the only way out of this predicament would be to observe events in places like the Andromeda which are known to produce certain particles, say neutrinos in supernovas and if the velocities of decay particles or the pattern of decay would deviate from what you would normally see if neutrinos came from a stationary emitter, this would work against the assumption that variances in particle velocities are a sole result of the expansion of space. Alternatively, you can set up fast emitters in a vacuum here on Earth.
Moreover, the notion of expansion of space is laughable because what happens on macroscales does not reflect what occurs on microscales. Galaxies, galactic clusters and superclusters do tend to fly apart at a more or less steady rate due to initial velocities their precursors gained just after the big bang and because orbits are not stable over long term due to random interactions which tend either to expell objects from systems into the void of space, or pull them into the gravitational center of these systems. Even if you pretended this to represent the said expansion of space, the same cannot be said to occur on subatomic scales i.e. space does not expand on subatomic scales. Atoms do disintegrate on long time scales just like galaxies disintegrate, but through an entirely different process. Protons disintegrate because they are made up of two up and one down quark. One of those quarks, cannot say for sure which one but I think it's the down quark, has a much greater probability (again, over enormous time scales) to convert into the other type (the up quark), than the reverse process, up into the down quark. You then wind up with 3 up quarks which fly apart causing disintegration of the proton. The associated neutron if one exists will then disintegrate as well, because neutrons cannot exist by themselves not bound to any protons. Free neutrons persist for about one minute and then disintegrate into gamma rays. This all represents a disintegration of atoms through decay, but not through a gradual expansion of subatomic space.
Most of this gibberish implies a total misunderstanding of what the expansion of space actually is. What it actually is, is an extremely small trend appreciable only over extremely large distances. Many orders of magnitude larger than galactic clusters. Within galactic clusters, the force of gravity easily dominates the expansion of space. Andromeda and the Milky Way are approaching each other through gravitational attraction. There is of course some distance at which two massive objects like these galaxies would find their gravitational attraction exactly balanced by the expansion of space (because gravity grows weaker according to the inverse square principle). That distance is probably at least a billion light years (and I'm sure it's been calculated, but I'm too lazy to look it up). Interestingly, it was just this week that the latest satellite measurements came in indicating (among other things) that the Hubble Constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding) is smaller than previously calculated, and has been reduced from 72 tp 67. It's probably worth noting that very distant galaxies aren't actually moving through space faster than light. And indeed, galaxies do have proper motion (that is, movement through space) relative to one another, and are approaching or receding from one another independent of the expansion of space. Again, if their proper motion is toward one another, but the distance between them is large enough (perhaps billions of light years), the expansion can be greater than the proper motion.
And another footnote - these studies do not "prove" Einstein's theories, which can never be proved. What they do is lend ever-stronger support to the theories. By now, there isn't much doubt that Einstein got it largely right at the scales he was dealing with. At subatomic scales, his theories don't work.
Well, the modern mainstream perception has space expanding on subatomic scales as well. Look it up. But if as you said, space does not have to expand on subatomic scales as long as it expands on macroscales, then space has to come in many forms and flavours which all behave differently. Moreover, the mainstream view now does have distant galaxies receding from the ones nearby at faster than the speed of light. Look it up.
Moreover, electrons have definitive properties including the number of waves they must complete with each wave characterized by a definitive length, to comprise an orbital. If the subatomic space were to expand, how would this account for the properties of electrons set in orbitals?
This is your claim. Provide a link. Why? The model I've seen says that the expansion of space is far weaker than gravity, and THEREFORE can only operate over truly vast distances between galactic clusters where gravity is weak enough for it to operate. Well, certainly the expansion of space makes this possible. The satellite I mentioned also pushed back the age of the universe from 13.7 to 13.8 billion years. If we can see galaxies that far away, which have been moving away from us all that time, then in practice we haven't reached the point of distant galaxies disappearing. The age of the universe is based on more observations than just the furthest galaxies we can see, so I tend to trust these numbers. - - - Updated - - - Since I'm not familiar with any model of subatomic space expanding, I'm not going to speculate about how orbits and wavelengths would accommodate it.
Since I'm not familiar with any model of subatomic space expanding, I'm not going to speculate about how orbits and wavelengths would accommodate it.[/QUOTE] Have you heard about standing waves and how they relate to representation of atomic orbitals?
Have you heard about standing waves and how they relate to representation of atomic orbitals?[/QUOTE]Yes. Enough to know that this is yet another model of the atom, useful for some purposes. The "probability cloud" model is useful for other purposes. Yet collision data suggests that electrons can be physically struck by neutrinos, so that's another model again. None of which is even addressed by General Relativity. I think your National Geographic guy was referring to phantom energy, which is yet another theory, not Einsteins.
Because of certain restrictions such as mass of the electron and other parameters in the Broglie's equations, those standing waves can form only at very specific distances from the center of atoms. That is why we can have only a finite number of orbitals before the electron chooses to leave the atom. If space were to be undergoing expansion constantly, so would the parameters and nature of those orbits and what goes together with it, chemical properties of elements etc.
This is confused. The "shell" model of the atom still works very well, since it explains the structure of the periodic table, valence levels, molecular bonding, and the like. Electrons don't exactly leave the atom in an atomic bond, though they can and commonly do in ionization. This is basic chemistry.
Yes. Enough to know that this is yet another model of the atom, useful for some purposes. The "probability cloud" model is useful for other purposes. Yet collision data suggests that electrons can be physically struck by neutrinos, so that's another model again. None of which is even addressed by General Relativity. I think your National Geographic guy was referring to phantom energy, which is yet another theory, not Einsteins.[/QUOTE] Well, GTR equations seem to/are used to - predict expansion of space. But previously this was done on macroscales but is now used on microscales as well. In hindsight, GTR enthusiasts should butt out of the realm of microscales.
If space were to be expanding constantly, then so would the orbital distances and separation of orbitals within their atomic structure, and hence the energies given off or absorbed when electrons jump between orbitals. Even if this would not change the number of valence electrons available for bonding, it could nevertheless affect to a lesser extent the strength and nature of these bonds by impacting on the degree of ionization of bonds.
The fixed property of standing waves representing electrons set in orbitals which consist of complete, whole number of wavelengths, imply that fixed scales of space and distance do exist, and space cannot simply expand continuously in relation to some arbitrary scale value without matter feeling any effect.
