A Babe in the Universe

[PraedSt]

Sorry, simple questions I hope. Something I've been wondering for a while.

I'm sure most of you have come across L. Riofrio, aka A Babe in the Universe.
She runs a blog, http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com, in which she propounds a variable c theory with what appears to be a very elegant equation: GM=tc^3

In her own words she

originated the "GM=tc^3" theory, which explains the dark energy problem

Two links to her papers; the second one of which she says

has been accepted by a major refereed journal

http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...tc3-paper.html
http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...n-paradox.html

I assume that her theory is ATM. My questions are: What do you think the chances are of this becoming mainstream? Is her theory new? Does it have merit?

And if by chance L. Riofrio is a BAUT member; sorry (just trying to learn), and contributions would be welcome.

Thanks everyone. Sorry if this has been covered before.

[timb]

Narcissism is something to beware in a scientist.

[Nowhere Man]

I find this comment by the author telling:

I would love to [put the paper on arxiv], but even arXiv is controlled by those protecting old (string) theroies.

G = Newton's constant expressed in meters cubed divided by (grams times seconds squared)
M = mass expressed in grams
t = time expressed in seconds
c = velocity of light in meters divided by seconds

So the units balance, which is a lot more that most ATM ideas accomplish. That's about as far as I can/care to go with this.

Fred

[PraedSt]

Thanks Nowhere man.

I'm in the process of culling some passages from those articles, and pasting them here. I have a feeling that, unlike you (thanks again), most BAUTers hate trawling through links
And why shouldn't they...I'm finding it slow going myself. But that's probably because I don't understand much of it...

[PraedSt]

Ok, this is what I've got so far:

1. Louise Riofrio's theory is basically a variable c theory, with all its problems therein.

2. Despite that, she doesn't appear to be a typical ATM nut. She has a PhD in cosmology!

3. Her central formula is: GM = tc^3 where

G: Gravitational constant
M: Mass of the Universe
t: Age of universe
c: Speed of light in a vacuum

4. Derivation is as follows:

G: Gravitational constant
M: Mass of the Universe
R: Radius of the Universe
t: Age of universe
c: Speed of light in a vacuum
m: Rest mass of particle
E: Rest energy of particle

Now, please don't ask me about the following three equations because I'm no physicist! But this is her derivation:

E = mc^2 .....(1)
E = (GMm)/R ....(2)
R = ct .....(3)

From these, simple substitution and cancellation leads to: GM = tc^3

So c is a function of time: c(t) = (GM)^(1/3)*t^(-1/3), or c(t) ~ t^(-1/3)
i.e. as the Universe ages, the speed of light slows.

5. In her writings, she uses GM=tc^3 with the following topics:

Standard Big Bang Model, Inflation Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, CMB, WMAP, Type Ia supernova redshifts, the Horizon Problem, the Faint Young Sun problem, and others.

I'll try and cover what she says about these in parts, because frankly I don't know what half of these mean. I think I'll start with the Faint Young Sun problem because it seems easier

Assistance/Insight/Comments would be appreciated! Thanks...

[Nowhere Man]

Hmm. Her equation (2) E = (GMm)/R seems suspect to me. Where did that come from? I admit I haven't read her papers; most of it's over my head -- I checked in just to confirm what G was.

With small R, E becomes large. Since R is a function of t (the universe is expanding), at t=0, R=0 and E=infinity (or at least, R=almost but not quite zero and E=really frickin' huge).

But what is E supposed to be? It says "rest energy of particle" up there. But what is the connection between "the particle" and the mass M and radius R of the universe? Consider these rhetorical questions, PraedSt, I don't expect you to have the answers.

PhD in cosmology. From what institution, I wonder? Oh, ghods, another web page with black background, gray font, and small letters. It's like they don't want you to read their stuff.

Fred

[PraedSt]

Oh, ghods, another web page with black background, gray font, and small letters. It's like they don't want you to read their stuff

I know! Just what I thought

As for equation (2), I'm trying to fully figure that out myself. Something to do with the rest energy of a particle in Plank units...

[Nowhere Man]

Good luck.

I don't see anything about a PhD on her page. Profile says "researcher in cosmology" and author's name on the first paper does not include PhD. Based on other statements in the profile, I'm disinclined to believe the PhD. Profile says age is 252, but that's either a typo or she's been around a while .

[Neverfly]

What? You never saw an Old Babe?

Actually, the thread title made me think of the Slugger.

[PraedSt]

I don't see anything about a PhD on her page

Yeah, she seems to be a bit coy about it. I got the PhD from one of her critics, so I suppose we're all guessing. The relevant bit:

There is crazy out there, folks. Even from people with Ph.D. degrees, sadly

The whole post is actually quite amusing (WARNING, black background alert)
http://startswithabang.com/?p=366

[Fortis]

Her equation R=ct assumes that c is a constant. She then uses this to claim that c is a function of the age of the universe. There's a bit of a contradiction here.

[PraedSt]

Could she mean it in an average speed sense? That would make it true by definition.

The second link on the right of this page: http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/ has one of her papers in PDF format. This is an extract of her reasoning:

The evidence, from redshift and the CMB, contains puzzles that are unexplained by the Standard Big Bang Model. The CMB is too uniform for a Universe expanding at the present value of c. Recent data from supernovae indicates that the distance/redshift relation breaks down at high Z. The observed ”critical” density of mass is not explained by current paradigms. Fortunately there are simple, precise explanations for CMB radiation, density and redshifts.

Points in Space/Time have timelike separation R = ct from the ”Big Bang” singularity. The spherical Von Riemann Universe (Volume V = 2*Pi^2*R^3) obeys the cosmological principle: It is closed, unbounded, homogeneous and isotropic. Scale R = ct also expands as t increases, its expansion slowed by gravitation. Gravitation further requires that c and t be related by:
GM = tc^3.....(1)
Where G is Newton’s constant, M and t are Mass and age of the Universe.

A simple equation can lead to many solutions. We solve for c(t) and R(t):
c(t) = (GM)^(1/3)*t^(−1/3).....(2)
R(t) = ct = (GM)^(1/3)*t^(2/3).....(3)

Latter is the metric of Einstein-de Sitter expansion, the favoured model of both
authors. The Universe expands and slows to infinity, never stopping or reversing
its expansion.

Does that make sense?

[Fortis]

Could she mean it in an average speed sense? That would make it true by definition.

The second link on the right of this page: http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/ has one of her papers in PDF format. This is an extract of her reasoning:



Does that make sense?

I'm not familiar with the "von Riemann universe" so it's a bit hard to comment on that bit. It appears that the scale of this model is proportional to c, but it is unclear if this model still works with a non-constant c. Oh well...

[Nowhere Man]

If she means Bernhard Riemann, there's no "von" in his name. Doesn't give me hope that she knows what she's talking about.

Fred

[PraedSt]

If she means Bernhard Riemann, there's no "von" in his name. Doesn't give me hope that she knows what she's talking about

Yes, that worries me too. I'm slowly building up a collection of red flags over here...

[Fortis]

If she means Bernhard Riemann, there's no "von" in his name. Doesn't give me hope that she knows what she's talking about.

Fred

I wondered the same thing. Possibly a conflation of Riemann and John von Neumann? For the moment, though, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Fortis]

The more I read this, the less it makes sense. Why equate

GMm/R

with

mc^2

The first expression provides the change in potential energy for a mass m that has been brought from infinity to a distance R from the centre of a spherical distribution of mass M. The second expression is the rest mass energy for a mass m. Does the potential energy change for a 1 kg mass at the surface of the Earth look anything like mc^2?

Maybe I'm missing something but this looks very wrong.

[PraedSt]

You know, she never seems to explain her derivation, and I find that annoying.

But I think I can (sort of see) where she's going with this:

m is any mass, M is the mass of the Universe, and R is the radius of the universe.

So basically, the rest mass energy of mass m now, is what's left after trotting all these years from the moment of the Big Bang.

So from E=GMm/R we get an E that was much larger then, than it is now.

And from E=mc^2 we get the same result if we consider R=ct, where t is the time elapsed since the Big Bang.

I think that's what she's saying...

[Neverfly]

Why am I reminded of Tired Light?

[Nowhere Man]

Tired matter? That's what Praedst's latest analysis sounds like.

I agree with Fortis. The equating of the two energies just feels wrong. But then, I am not a physicist...

Fred

[Fortis]

You know, she never seems to explain her derivation, and I find that annoying.

But I think I can (sort of see) where she's going with this:

m is any mass, M is the mass of the Universe, and R is the radius of the universe.

So basically, the rest mass energy of mass m now, is what's left after trotting all these years from the moment of the Big Bang.

So from E=GMm/R we get an E that was much larger then, than it is now.

And from E=mc^2 we get the same result if we consider R=ct, where t is the time elapsed since the Big Bang.

I think that's what she's saying...

But we know that gravity doesn't work like that, as I think my example showed. All she seems to have done is take two energies that depend on mass, and equated them.

[PraedSt]

Heh...her papers are certainly tiring me out..

Anyway, the use of her formula in the Faint Young Sun Problem. I'd never heard about this before but, after having done some reading, it seems to be an interesting problem in its own right.

This is the Wiki statement of the problem, or paradox:

The faint young Sun paradox or the faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in the Earth's history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun's output would be only 70% as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch

In other words, Earth should have been frozen over 4bn years ago.
The paradox has apparently been resolved, by assuming larger concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of early Earth. However, and as usual (!), they are still arguing about it:
http://space.newscientist.com/articl...young-sun.html

Two good BAUT threads on the subject:
http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/3...n-paradox.html
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...early-sun.html

Louise's analysis and solution are given below, in her own words. It's extracted from here: http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...n-paradox.html

The standard solar model predicts that about 4 Ga ago the Sun shone with scarcely 70 percent of its present power. Because power, P, is related to temperature, T, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, P ~ T^4, Earth’s temperature would have been only (70)^{1/4} = 91 percent of its present value. Today’s average temperature is about 283K, so temperature in the past would have been only 258K, or 15K below freezing

Correct so far...

Geology shows evidence of extensive sedimentation before 4 Ga ago, indicating the presence of rivers and seas. Other geologic features corroborate the presence of liquid water on Earth during this period. The earliest organisms are at least 3.4 Ga and possibly over 4 Ga old. Clearly liquid water and life both existed when the model predicts Earth was frozen solid. The fact that life exists today is in conflict with the standard solar model. This conflict with observations is the Faint Young Sun paradox

Statement of the problem...still correct..

A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been suggested to somehow allow a proper temperature, but there is no geological evidence whatsoever for this. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent of the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets

Partly correct. 'No geological evidence' is a bit strong...at the moment there seems to be evidence either way.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...ticle&sid=2232
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...arm-earth.html

Her point about Mars and the probability of a similar solution seem valid though. Any Mars people out there, please comment...
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/m...radox_FYS.html (Black Background Warning!)

Fortunately, Relativity and new physics may help save the standard solar model. The Sun converts its fuel to energy according to E = mc^2. One theory of Space/Time predicts that c is related to t by:

GM = tc^3

Where t is age of the Universe, GM combines its mass and gravitational constant. Solving, we have c(t) ~ t^{-1/3}. Billions of years ago, solar output and temperature were therefore higher than originally predicted.

The bit you have to take with a pinch of salt...

Earth is estimated to be 4.6 Ga and the Universe 13.7 Ga, 1.5 times its age at the time of Earth’s formation. Energy is adjusted by: times the initial estimate. Multiplying by an estimate of 70 percent, the Sun’s actual output was 0.917 of the present value. Temperature was then 98 percent of what we enjoy today

Her English is all wrong here but this is essentially what she's saying:

4bn years ago, t, the age of the Universe, was less (obviously). This means c, the speed of light, was higher (from her relationship). This means, from E = mc^2, rest mass energy of hydrogen was higher. Therefore the sun released more energy 4 bn years ago and the Young Sun Problem is thus solved.

There is a nice graph of estimated Solar Output on the same page:
http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...n-paradox.html


So....what do you make of that? It's a neat solution certainly. Might be horrendously wrong, but at least it's elegant!

[Fortis]

Heh...her papers are certainly tiring me out..

Anyway, the use of her formula in the Faint Young Sun Problem. I'd never heard about this before but, after having done some reading, it seems to be an interesting problem in its own right.

This is the Wiki statement of the problem, or paradox:


In other words, Earth should have been frozen over 4bn years ago.
The paradox has apparently been resolved, by assuming larger concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of early Earth. However, and as usual (!), they are still arguing about it:
http://space.newscientist.com/articl...young-sun.html

Two good BAUT threads on the subject:
http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/3...n-paradox.html
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...early-sun.html

Louise's analysis and solution are given below, in her own words. It's extracted from here: http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...n-paradox.html


Correct so far...


Statement of the problem...still correct..


Partly correct. 'No geological evidence' is a bit strong...at the moment there seems to be evidence either way.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...ticle&sid=2232
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...arm-earth.html

Her point about Mars and the probability of a similar solution seem valid though. Any Mars people out there, please comment...
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/m...radox_FYS.html (Black Background Warning!)


The bit you have to take with a pinch of salt...




Her English is all wrong here but this is essentially what she's saying:

4bn years ago, t, the age of the Universe, was less (obviously). This means c, the speed of light, was higher (from her relationship). This means, from E = mc^2, rest mass energy of hydrogen was higher. Therefore the sun released more energy 4 bn years ago and the Young Sun Problem is thus solved.

There is a nice graph of estimated Solar Output on the same page:
http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...n-paradox.html


So....what do you make of that? It's a neat solution certainly. Might be horrendously wrong, but at least it's elegant!

It sounds like an elegant solution, but it seems to make the error that a lot of ATM theories make. It treats the new theory in isolation. Where does the energy from the Sun originate? Is it that four hydrogen nuclei and and a helium nucleus has a mass difference that can be converted into energy? Or perhaps this energy comes from something a little deeper, and the mass difference is an external indication of that?

It is generally viewed that it is the latter. Consider the energy levels inside an atom. These depend, in a non-linear fashion, on the speed of light. Staying with atomic energy levels, the relative ordering of spectral lines. Changing c will also change nuclear energy levels in a similar fashion. (This is why the Oklo reactor in the Gabon provides a good test of the constancy of the speed of light.)

So, perhaps the Sun would burn brighter, or it would burn slower, or maybe not at all, if her model is correct.

[PraedSt]

Where does the energy from the Sun originate? Is it that four hydrogen nuclei and and a helium nucleus has a mass difference that can be converted into energy?

Sorry Fortis, I thought it was that? I'm confused now

As far as I understand, she doesn't seem to want to change anything in current model's of the Sun's nuclear fusion reactions, other than c, and consequently E.

BUT, from what I can gather, you're spot on about the fact that allowing for a variable c,would mean changing a lot of other fundamental physics. Which just seems wrong!
Having said that, Louise seems to be a big fan of Einstein, so I doubt she'd say anything to directly contradict GR.

As for Oklo, I've found that yes, although there's some doubt: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html
but in general, most studies seem to show that c has not changed. Or, at the very least if it has changed, not as much as Louise claims it has. Anyway, this part of the discussion I'm leaving for later because I haven't done enough reading!

[PraedSt]

Some more stuff

Louise on Einstein:http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...-equation.html

Louise on Friedmann:http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...air-today.html

[Fortis]

Sorry Fortis, I thought it was that? I'm confused now

As far as I understand, she doesn't seem to want to change anything in current model's of the Sun's nuclear fusion reactions, other than c, and consequently E.

BUT, from what I can gather, you're spot on about the fact that allowing for a variable c,would mean changing a lot of other fundamental physics. Which just seems wrong!
Having said that, Louise seems to be a big fan of Einstein, so I doubt she'd say anything to directly contradict GR.

As for Oklo, I've found that yes, although there's some doubt: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html
but in general, most studies seem to show that c has not changed. Or, at the very least if it has changed, not as much as Louise claims it has. Anyway, this part of the discussion I'm leaving for later because I haven't done enough reading!

She may not want to change the way nuclear fusion works, but if you change the value of c, you can't help but change the way that nuclear fusion works. It's hard to see how she can avoid doing that.

[PraedSt]

Ok, that's it. I've been convinced her theory, if not completely bogus, has serious flaws in it.

Towards the end of this blog post, http://startswithabang.com/?p=366, there is a short Q&A session with Louise.

Her answers are not convincing. She also, at one point, says this:

Neil Turok, who is a bigger critic of inflation than I, has just been appointed director of Perimeter Institute. I recommend that you crank out a blog post saying Turok didn’t get the memo. Don’t forget the warning “crazy stuff here.” Then again, it seems easier to pick on the girl.

Ok. She might be getting picked on as a girl. Who knows? I'm not one. But falling back on the 'you're sexist' line raises my hackles. She should be able to defend her theory without resorting to such statements; and I think that if it were a good enough theory, she'd be doing just that.

I'm not investigating further. Thread closed.

[PraedSt]

She may not want to change the way nuclear fusion works, but if you change the value of c, you can't help but change the way that nuclear fusion works. It's hard to see how she can avoid doing that.

Yeah, I agree. Have a look at the above blog if you have the time. In the Q&A session Louise gets asked very similar questions to what you guys have asked.

Thanks for all your help by the way Fortis. And Nowhereman and Neverfly.

[Neverfly]

Thanks for all your help by the way Fortis. And Nowhereman and Neverfly.

All credit goes to Fortis on this.
NowhereMan and I sat in the background making snide remarks.

[Nowhere Man]

Oh, come on. I put a little thought into my comments. Then I made snide remarks.

I commend PraedSt for having the intestinal fortitude to go as far as he did.

Fred