SPACE GAUGE May 1, 2002 |
|
|
|
SPACE GAUGE May 1, 2002 |
|
|
Essential to the support of this concept, are speed and time; all three: space, time and speed, serving as fundamental keystones to modern physics. For example, given two distinctly different positions in space, one might readily prove this distance by firing a projectile past both locations, causing a sensor to be tripped; both events being recorded on a time graph, such as an oscilloscope. By altering the distance between locations, the duration of time elapsed between trips would change proportionately, indicating the presence of another ubiquitous medium, we know as time, which seems to be somehow metrically linked to space.
In this example, space and time are thought to be constant in their relationship, which means that both might be metrically invariant, or that both might be metrically variant, providing both change in the same way.
Metrically variant is the same as saying that the space-gauge is not constant, and relates to the physical size of things, such as atoms. If the space-gauge decreases in time, objects become smaller, and atomic distances shorter: such as the orbital radius of electrons associated with cesium atoms, as example. Since this relationship is commonly used in laboratory timekeeping, with shorter orbits and electrons moving at a fixed speed around the central atom, laboratory time would speed up.
There is the question of speed, as to whether or not speed is invariant. If we allow speed to be invariant, there is the third combination in the relationship between time and space, that time is invariant and space is variant. Let me explain.
First, if space and time are invariant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted, year after year.
On the other hand, if space and time are variant, proportionately so, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted.
Finally, if space is variant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would take different times moving between these two locations, each and every time the experiment was conducted. If the locations were closer, then it would seem that the time it takes to travel between would be quicker, and if further apart, longer.
If this distance, rather than a straight line between locations, was instead the distance an electron would travel in completing a single orbit around its respective atom, then laboratory time would be variant, exactly offsetting any perceived time changes in the projectiles transit between locations. In other words, though the projectile travels, say a shorter distance between locations at an always constant speed, since time also speeds up, the observer would never experience any difference; all three possibilities yielding the same results. So which is correct?
If one considers the universe as our laboratory, and if the third possibility is correct, that time is subjectively invariant, speed invariant, or nearly so, and space variant, then light emitted by distant galaxies, will have been emitted at some time past when orbital distances were greater than they are now, which means that emission frequencies were lower. This of course, would be the cause of the red-shift, rather than the Doppler effect of receding galaxies. If on the other hand, size became greater, we would see a blue shift towards the higher frequencies since the emission orbits would be smaller than those of today. This forth option is not illustrated.
Unlike the expanding universe hypothesis, where the distances between celestial objects increases, as the interpretation of Hubble law in terms of receding galaxies, the reverse is not true in this model, called the Contracting Universe Hypothesis. Because only the atomic packing is affected by the change in space-gauge, the distances between gross material objects as atomic aggregates, such as stars, moons and planets does not changed. In this sense, the Contracting Universe Hypothesis is not the reverse of the Big-Bang model.