What is self-creation cosmology (SCC)?
From the wiki on SCC here]
Self-creation cosmology (SCC) theories are gravitational theories in which the mass of the universe is created out of its self-contained gravitational and scalar fields, as opposed to the theory of continuous creation cosmology or the steady state theory which depend on an extra 'creation' field.
Overview:
In the new Self-Creation Cosmology theory (henceforth referred to as just SCC) the modification of the Brans Dicke theory, which allows the creation of matter and energy, is constrained by the principle of the local conservation of energy. This has the effect that rest masses vary whereas the observed Newtonian Gravitation ’constant’ does not. Furthermore, there is a conformal equivalence between SCC and General Relativity in vacuo, which results in the predictions of the two theories being equal in the standard tests.
Significant feature of SCC:
Unlike the standard model, however, it does not require the addition of the undiscovered physics of Inflation, dark non-baryonic matter, or unknown dark energy. On the other hand it does demand an exotic equation of state, which requires the presence of false vacuum energy at a moderate density that is determined by the field equations. As a result of this link between the false vacuum and space-time curvature the theory is able to interface gravitation and quantum theories without creating a ’Lambda’ problem. There is a problem fitting the distant Type Ia supernovae data as this theory requires them not to be standard candles over cosmological history but intrinsically fainter in the past.
Bold added by me.
"Big Bang" with no inflation?
In the former frame the universe is stationary and eternal with exponentially shrinking rulers and accelerating atomic clocks, while in the latter, and more familiar, frame the universe is 'freely coasting', and expands linearly from a Big Bang with rigid rulers and regular atomic clocks.
Such a strictly linearly expanding universe does not require Inflation to resolve the horizon problem, or the smoothness and flatness problems that exist in GR as they do not arise in the first place.
Bold added by me.
The new (2002) theory:
An alternative to the principle of the conservation of energy–momentum is required, in order to constrain mass creation.
In the new SCC theory it is postulated that mass is created out of gravitational and scalar fields in accordance with the Principle of Mutual Interaction (PMI).
The PMI states that:
"The scalar field is a source for the matter-energy field if and only if the matter-energy field is a source for the scalar field."
Philosophical problems associated with a singularity and "an origin" disappear:
In the Jordan conformal frame the cosmological solution is closed, static (but dynamically evolving), eternal and singularity free. In this frame rulers 'shrink' (relative to the peak wavelength of the CMB) and atomic clocks 'speed up' (relative to time measured by the peak frequency of the CMB) as their atoms exponentially gain mass with cosmological time .
Philosophical problems associated with 'an origin' thus disappear.
Bold added by me.
Clock drift:
Finally, SCC predicts a cosmological 'clock drift' between atomic clock time and ephemeris time. Consequentially, in some methods of measurement distant spacecraft should appear to suffer a sunwards acceleration equal to cH, as indeed seems to be observed in the Pioneer anomaly.
One of them, the Gravity Probe B geodetic precession, which measures the precessions of four accurate orbiting gyroscopes, is being evaluated in 2007; SCC predicts 2/3 that of the GR N-S precession, i.e. 4.4096 arcsec/yr. whereas the frame-dragging or gravitomagnetic E-W precession prediction is the same as that of GR i.e. 0.0409 arcsec/yr. The first results of this experiment were published at the American Physical Society Meeting on 14 April 2007. While unforeseen errors are still being determined through 2007 the geodetic precession measurement of 6.6 arcsec/yr, which is within 1% of the GR prediction, is fatal to the present form of SCC.
Bold by me.
Finally, SCC predicts a cosmological 'clock drift' between atomic clock time and ephemeris time. Consequentially, in some methods of measurement distant spacecraft should appear to suffer a sunwards acceleration equal to cH, as indeed seems to be observed in the Pioneer anomaly.
We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.
One of them, the Gravity Probe B geodetic precession, which measures the precessions of four accurate orbiting gyroscopes, is being evaluated in 2007; SCC predicts 2/3 that of the GR N-S precession, i.e. 4.4096 arcsec/yr. whereas the frame-dragging or gravitomagnetic E-W precession prediction is the same as that of GR i.e. 0.0409 arcsec/yr. The first results of this experiment were published at the American Physical Society Meeting on 14 April 2007. While unforeseen errors are still being determined through 2007 the geodetic precession measurement of 6.6 arcsec/yr, which is within 1% of the GR prediction, is fatal to the present form of SCC.
Bold by me.
I read that, but GdB, did you not read the following before proclaiming SCC to be false in bold?
From the same wiki on SCC and in the section on falsifiable tests of the theory:
However, this is not the end of the matter for according to SCC the satellite is not in free fall, it is being accelerated by the scalar field force. This introduces an extra Thomas precession of 1/6 the GR prediction. This extra precession has to be subtracted thus leaving a total SCC geodetic precession in a N-S direction of 2/3 the GR prediction or just 4.4096 arcsec/yr.
Finally, SCC predicts a cosmological 'clock drift' between atomic clock time and ephemeris time. Consequentially, in some methods of measurement distant spacecraft should appear to suffer a sunwards acceleration equal to cH, as indeed seems to be observed in the Pioneer anomaly.
We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.
Bold in the original.
It is not as simple as that.
From the same wiki on the Pioneer anomaly you cited and from the section on:
Potential issues with the thermal solution
There are two features of the anomaly, as originally reported, that are not addressed by the thermal solution: periodic variations in the anomaly, and the onset of the anomaly near the orbit of Saturn.
First, the anomaly has an apparent annual periodicity and an apparent Earth sidereal daily periodicity with an amplitude greater than the error budget.....
Second, the value of anomaly averaged over a period during and after the Pioneer 11 Saturn encounter had a relatively high uncertainty and a significantly lower value.[36][37] The Turyshev, et al. 2012 paper compared the thermal analysis to the Pioneer 10 only....
There are many other possible "explanations" in the wiki and it ends with the following:
A meeting was held at the University of Bremen in 2004 to discuss the Pioneer anomaly.[61]
The Pioneer Explorer Collaboration was formed to study the Pioneer Anomaly and has hosted three meetings (2005, 2007, and 2008) at International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland to discuss the anomaly, and discuss possible means for resolving the source.[62]
Did I say it is wrong? I just quoted Wiki entries, as you do.
You are just running away again with highly speculative science, as usual.
Not quite so.
You did not say it is wrong, but the bold added by you in your quote from the wiki implied SCC is falsified.
And you are running away with unjustified assumptions, as usual.
:lol:
Before you two go bickering, on the face of it this seems like legitimate science. Maybe it’s highly speculative, but gee, since when is that a bad thing? Is SCC something legitimate scientists are working on?
Regardless, it’s definitely highly mathematical, so putting it on this forum is kind of silly unless all you’re looking for is high speculative comments from non-scientists (on the order of those who can make heads or tails of the actual math).
Before you two go bickering, on the face of it this seems like legitimate science. Maybe it's highly speculative, but gee, since when is that a bad thing? Is SCC something legitimate scientists are working on?
Regardless, it's definitely highly mathematical, so putting it on this forum is kind of silly unless all you're looking for is high speculative comments from non-scientists (on the order of those who can make heads or tails of the actual math).
SCC, like all cosmology, is speculative but it is not a bad thing per se. Nevertheless, it is scientific in its approach and legitimate scientists/cosmologists are exploring its conseguences.
From a review of the original theory in 2010 by Garth A. Barber (the proposal of the theory, in 1982) here]
From the conclusion:
The 2002 version of the theory has been corrected to use the ’true’ form of the stress-energy tensor to evaluate experiments and observations dealing with matter and the ’effective’ form of the stress-energy tensor to interpret those dealing with light. With this correction the theory correctly predicts the geodetic precession measurement of the Gravity Probe B experiment, which the 2002 version did not. However that theory, and the present version, are concordant with all other tests of GR and two further experiments may resolve this degeneracy. Furthermore the theory offers an explanation for a real Pioneer Anomaly and also for hints of some other non-GR anomalies. On the one hand, in the EF the universe is seen to expand linearly from a Big Bang thus resolving the smoothness and density problems without the need for Inflation, furthermore papers and eprints examining primordial nucleosynthesis in such a coasting cosmology suggest the baryon density would be much higher and might explain Dark Matter as being baryonic in nature, however what form this baryonic dark matter takes remains an unanswered question. On the other hand, in the ’effective’ Jordan conformal frame, in which the unit of time is measured by a photon sampled from the peak of the CMB, the universe is closed and static with masses increasing exponentially with time, causing solid rulers to shrink and atomic clocks to accelerate in the same manner. The moment of the Big Bang itself is projected into the infinite past, thereby avoiding philosophical problems concerned with the concept of ’an origin’. By using the true form of the JF the total density parameter is determined to be unity.
Bold added by me.
Notwithstanding the mathematics, without inflation with its inherent problems and with the Big Bang
projected into the infinite past thereby avoiding the philosophical problems of an origin, SCC has distinct merits.
What is most intriguing is that solid rulers can shrink and atomic clocks can accelerate, according to SCC.
:cheese:
Before you two go bickering, on the face of it this seems like legitimate science. Maybe it's highly speculative, but gee, since when is that a bad thing? Is SCC something legitimate scientists are working on?
:lol:
Don't be afraid, I did not want to continue. You are right, but I said that already: it is speculative science. Speculation, the designing of hypotheses, is a necessary part of the scientific praxis. So let's wait and see. It surely is way above our heads, and definitely above kkwan's. So you are completely right:
Regardless, it's definitely highly mathematical, so putting it on this forum is kind of silly unless all you're looking for is high speculative comments from non-scientists (on the order of those who can make heads or tails of the actual math).
It is kkwan's hobby to show that established science is wrong, by presenting some logical nonsense (2 envelopes), or fringe science, or highly speculative science. He pastes some citations he doesn't not even understand himself, and presents that as thinking, and as having an open mind.
Don't be afraid, I did not want to continue. You are right, but I said that already: it is speculative science. Speculation, the designing of hypotheses, is a necessary part of the scientific praxis. So let's wait and see. It surely is way above our heads, and definitely above kkwan's. So you are completely right:
:lol:
It is kkwan's hobby to show that established science is wrong, by presenting some logical nonsense (2 envelopes), or fringe science, or highly speculative science. He pastes some citations he doesn't not even understand himself, and presents that as thinking, and as having an open mind.