Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Origin of the Universe

Take a peek at http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/32309.aspx and http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cosmologyandcosmogony/ for a spirited debate on the validity of the HBB theory. The Astronomy forum on cosmogony is a discussion of which I have got really tired recently. I am seeking change-over to an exchange about the implications of a quantum dynamical hypothesis for an inflationary initiation of the HBB.

There seems to be no recognition of such implications. If the universe really did begin as a point particle, called an "inflaton", that appeared in a "false vacuum" by virtue of the tendencey of quantum particles to simply materialize out of nothingness along with their antiparticles, then many questions seem to be settled. But, new ones appear, as is usually the case in science.

For instance, virtual quantum particles that appear out of nothing along with their antiparticles annihillate each other almost instantly. They are called virtual because their lifetime is so brief and they cannot be detected directly. The existence of virtual particles can be proven by studies of muon decay in powerful particle accelerators and by other means. For a virtual particle to remain in existence and become detectable in its own right, it must appear at the event horizon of a black whole, as has been shown by Steven Hawking.

The particle and antiparticle fail to mutually annihilate because one falls into the black hole and the other escapes. If the universe began as such a virtual particle, does this imply that it is or was near the event horizon of an ultramassive black hole?

Our universe may still be in the vicinity of our antiparticle, our anti-universe. It may remain close enough for the gravitational fields of both to overlap. There is much evidence that the reason gravity is difficult to incorporate into unified field theories, grand unified theories or "theories of everything" is that it is unlike the other forces. It can "leak" out of our universe and thus appear to be a very weak force when, in fact, it is the strongest of all the forces. There are quantum phenomena that would allow our universe and our anti-universe to remain near each other for a long time, say, 13.7 billion years, without mutual annihilation.

When quantum particles, which are also quantum wave packets, are detected statistically or even individually, they appear as waveforms and as their interference waveforms as well. In the case of whole universes, these may be regarded as humongous collective quantum states of all the matter and energy that they subsume. Then, there are quantum States A and interference State B for our particle, our universe's waveform, and States A' and B' for our antiparticle or anti-universe. Furthermore, these interference states, in order to be mathematically well described, must be able to hybridize. They can thus form the superpositions of states: A+B, A-B, A'+B', A'-B', A+A', B+B', A-A', B-B', B'+A, B'-A, A'+B, A'-B. Now, gravity can leak between all these states, there being 16 in all. So, the quantity of matter and energy in any one state may be only 1/16 th of the total. This is 0.0625 of the whole. Or else, maybe it is only about 0.04 of the total, depending on how you add up the States and the individual components of the States. If one eliminates the null states, those having a (-) sign, as possessing no gravitational field, one arrives at either 1/22 or 1/10 of the whole that any one state would contribute snd this would represent 0.045 or 0.10 of the whole. If one takes only the primary States into account then only A, B, A' and B' would superpose. Any one of them contributes 1/4 or 0.25 of the whole. There might be other reasonable combinations.

From our perspective within, say, State A, for instance, we can detect the existence of the whole by various means but we can account for as much as, say, 0.25 of it through the inventory of matter and energy in our universe. Maybe we can account for only 0.04 of it. Regardless, we are tempted to postulate some form of Dark Energy and Dark Matter to make the balance sheet work out right. We do this because we are not used to thinking in terms of the quantum dynamical metaphor and because we simply cannot see these other States. They are invisible and intangible.

The mystery of the "missing antimatter" is also accounted for in this scheme. There is no antimatter in our universe because it was all gathered into existence within our anti-universe and its interference wave, the States A' and B' and, perhaps, the other superposed States with primed components.But, there is no Dark Energy or Dark Matter. And, because this "missing mass" is all in some other universe, forever seperated from us by all means except through gravity, we will never be able to detect any of it directly.

Dark Matter is accounted for by MOND, modified Newtonian dynamics. The superposition of States requires that a small constant should be added to the right side of Newton's equation for his Law of Gravity. This small constant represents the "missing matter" in galaxies and galactic clusters. It results from leakage of the gravitational field between the superposed States, which may be so similar that they have galaxies and galactic clusters in almost the same positions but in different orientations. In other words, they are not quite congruent. So, the leakage appears as a smeared out, blurry, spherically distributed small but finite contribution to these cosmological objects' gravitational fields.

The matter and energy inventory of our universe does not balance because we have not taken into account the superposition of States. Statistical analysis of the distribution of energy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) shows that it is projected upon the sky as if from a flat surface. This implies that the geometry of the universe is flat, not curved like Einstein thought. For it to be flat, however, means that there is an enormous amount of matter and energy in the universe that is unaccounted for. Dark Energy was postulated as a source of this "missing mass", energy having a mass-equivalence through Einstein's famous equation. This idea gained traction when some supernovae were observed at enormous distances. Their brightness showed that they are further away than their red-shifts might indicate if the Hubble constant is applied. This means they are receding faster than is expected. The interpretation has been that this discrepancy amounts to acceleration of our universe's expansion NOW, in the more modern era, even though the more rapidly receding supernovae are observed to have existed THEN, in the most distant past.

It is a backward interpretation that succeeds only because it is perfectly backward and therefore it works - sort of. But, then it runs into reality. To explain this acceleration, Dark Energy was invoked as an ad hoc bandaid to patch the wound that this "observation" made in the s0-called "standard model" of the universe and its origin. So, Dark Energy fills the universe with its "missing mass". But, its nature is unknown and it appears to be an untestable hypothesis. There are conjectures about it - that it may be a new kind of field called "quintessence" that results in cosmological objects repelling each other when they are placed at great distances or that it may result from Einstein's cosmological constant. Ignored is the possibility that the data are being misinterpreted.

Instead, we are all supposed to be happy with an almost supernatural explanation for what amounts to sloppy hypothesizing.

Why do so many distinguished scientists take Dark Energy seriously? It is because they can see no other way past the conundrum that they have themselves created out of whole cloth. They are all trained in quantum mechanics and dynamics but the implication to cosmogony of this, the most well-tested theory in all of science, is so anti-intuitive that they refuse to consider it. So, they go for a hypothesis that is even more anti-intuitive.

Well Stanley, NOW look at the fine mess that you've got us into!

* * * * *

In a future post I shall explain how the assumption that the Hubble constant is indeed a constant has helped get us all into this mess.

You can see which are the leaders of the herd by watching for the ones who are out front when the stampede changes direction. If we look for the leaders at the time when acceleration became popular and when Dark Energy was first proposed, we can tell who might really be responsible for this joke. Then, we might be able to tell better why this mistake has propagated so far for so long. The Science Citation Index might be useful for this. One of its features is a list of citations by scientists and how often that citation was cited by other scientists in their own papers. It is difficult for me to spend much time in libraries. But, I shall find out if the SCI is available online. In another future post, I shall report on my finding.


Gary Kent said...

No Spam!

AmericanGypsie said...

I have been critical of Big Bang, red shift of receding galaxies, Dark Energy, relativity, the God Particle, and all other dirivatives of current cosmological popularism.

There are many plausible explanations to these interpretations that do not require a rewrite of Newtonian physics. Interstellar gas and dust will cause red shift, just as the Earth's atmosphere causes red shift at dawn. This unseen gas and dust also increases the mass of the invisible universe: dark matter. Gas and dust would also cause Cosmic Background Radiation.

A theory is not meaningful if it does not predict. I don't see these theories as predicting anything. In fact, recent observations seem to contradict these theories, requiring ever more creative corollaries to keep the thesis intact.

I agree that the current society of physicists must die out before objectivity and careful observation begin to lead science. Instruments, with computerization, have been biased to include manipulation of measurements to substantiate theory. Universities limit what observations are made.

There is a logical paradox concerning the age of the universe, 13.7 billion years, and the depth of the visible universe, 46.5 billion light-years.
How could our corner of the universe get 46.5 billion light-years away from the observable edge in 13.7 billion years time? We would have to be traveling in excess of the speed of light over the life of the universe to achieve that distance. This pratfall is explained away by space warps, expansion of the universe, multiple universes, and all kinds of wierdness.

I predict that more powerful space telescopes will expand the size of the universe. Even weirder stretches of calculus will be needed to keep current theories intact.

Is it possible that most physicists are dedicated to proving that God created Heaven and Earth?

Gary Kent said...

Dear AmericanGypsie:

Grey dust has been eliminated by the observation of the magnitude/redshift relation for very distant SNe Ia supernovae. Their spectra, brightness and redshifts are all concordant with calculated great distances.

Interstellar gas will not cause redshifts unless it is ionized, like a plasma. But, the existence of a plasma would eminate from all distances so that the distribution of locations of plasma emmision sources would not match the observed emmision source locations. And, the CMB power law (a type of frequency distribution) across the sky and across the spectrum, would not match the observed CMB (you know, that pretty sky chart showing the red and blue patches got from the WMAP satellite).

The disparity between the radius, radius of curvature or Hubble radius derived from H naught and the the magnitude of the scale factor got from application of the Friedmann equations is very large. This lack of agreement stems from the fact that the Friedmann equations calculate the scale factor of the entire universe, not just the "observable" universe.

The inverse of H naught gives the Hubble radius or the size of the observable universe (approximately). There are other ways to calculate this dimension depending on the type of observation that is made. But, they are in good agreement. For instance, the size of U is a bit smaller because the value of H naught that is obtained for X-rays by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory is a bit larger (77 km/s/Mpc) than the value for H naught got from ancient SNe Ia (72 km/s/Mpc).

X-ray redshifts will be very different from microwave redshifts and would occur by different mechanisms if it was caused by interferences and not by virgin emmision from the the time of "recombination" after the Big Bang.

It's funny that you suggest scientists may be Christians in disguise. They are mostly atheists or agnostics.

The Plasma panacea that has been proposed to account for everything is being pushed by Fundamentalist Christians as indicating that the universe is much younger, say, about 6,000 years old. They want to debunk the Big Bang and all it entails because it indicates age in the billions of years.

They will never succeed and they should give up.

Your comments are very good and I appreciate the thought that you have obviously given to this issue. If only certain scientists would give it the same.

However, I surely would not call general or special relativity mere scientific popularism. The Principles of Relativity are the second best validated pillars of all science.

The first best validated Principles are those regarding quantum mechanics and particle physics' quantum chromodynamics (the God Particle type of a merger between quantum science and relativity).

Because popular books have been written does not mean they have no serious basis just because they are popular.

AmericanGypsie said...

After I sent the "dust" post, I immediately realized that the "dust" would be ionic - all the natural elements of the Periodic Table in roughly the same proportions as on Earth except for the abundance of hydrogen and helium. Probably more carbon than silicon, and definitely less iron.

I don't see an even distribution. These ions are created by supernovae, have weight, and are affected by gravity, so they are clumpy. This is how amino acids and diamond dust form in outer space. Buckyballs floating in methanol on-the-rocks (ice), too. If they escape the galaxies, then they are likely to orbit galaxies as an atmosphere. Higher energy escape-velocity ions will tend to be funneled by the highways of least gravitational resistance into intergalactic clouds, possibly self-gravitating.

All these things have been identified and measured, but none have been predicted by relativity or Big Bang Theory. They are, of course, explainable by relativity and quantum physics, but the definition of a metaphysic is that it easily explains anything.

What is the contradictory experiment that would prove the Big Bang Theory wrong (falsifiability doctrine)? Where is Occam's Razor? I haven't seen examples of these scientific regulatory principles.

Gary Kent said...

Part 1

In random order, I will try to answer your questions.

There are many contradictory hypotheses that have been ruled out. None are considered 'critical’: if proven false would 'rule-in' the Big Bang.

For instance, Fred Hoyle proposed the steady-state hypothesis. It says that hydrogen nuclei (protons} and electrons come into being spontaneously to eventually give the universe that we see. But then there is no mechanism to explain the CMB and its characteristic power spectrum.

Another hypothesis is that the universe has always existed and always will, plain and simple. But, then the Hubble law has to be explained as well as the CMB, etc.

One by one the alternatives have been ruled out. There does not seem to be anywhere else to go.

Some have proposed that intergalactic plasma accounts for the CMB and the red-shift (RS) phenomenon. But, if there was such a distribution of intergalactic plasma, the pattern of the CMB would be all wrong. RS would not vary in the same way. Plasma emission from nearby environs would be detectable by their individual characteristic emission spectra - and have not been seen.

All in all, the BB accounts for observations best. It even satisfies the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor). When the details are considered, it is simpler than all the other competitors.

Grey dust or other dust may or may not be ionized. There is, in fact, a lot of dust in galaxies and some has no doubt been sling-shot out into intergalactic space. But, not much.

It would also be detectable by the brightness measurements from nearby as well as very distant SNe Ia supernovae. No trace of intergalactic grey dust has been found.

It is true that all those variety of elements have actually been found - but only inside galaxies. It's cool that planets formed from it as it became incorporated into newborn stars to form their 'accretion discs'. These eventually condensed to form the planets over billions of years.

So, as Carl Sagan remarked: "We are star-dust". How ironic it is and ultimately true to Christian scripture, as is the BB itself. In fact, one of the criticisms was that George Lemaitre, who first proposed what is now called the BB, was a Jesuit priest. So, he had an agenda. So what? An idea must stand on its merits. It matters not the motive for propounding it.

The BB actually does predict the distribution of hydrogen, deuterium, lithium, boron and beryllium. Since little boron is formed in the nuclei of stars, and even in some ordinary supernovae it forms too slowly because several subatomic particles have to collide simultaneously.

The series cannot continue if beryllium blocks it, since it too requires several subatomic particles to collide simultaneously with a beryllium nucleus.

But, in supermassive star collapse the supernovae cores are hot enough and this lasts for just the right length of time for the heavier elements to form. Plus, the earliest stars were indeed mostly supermassive. Just what Dr. Sagan ordered.

Oh, yes... the BB correctly predicts the right ratios for the light elements through boron. We can see these ratios in the spectra of young stars that seem to have formed from virgin gases in less dusty parts of galaxies.

Also, the ratios can be calculated. We have enough experience with nuclear and thermonuclear weapons to be able to do this quite reliably.

It can even be done well from first principles.


Gary Kent said...

Part 2

Some people claim that the concepts of physics really amount to a sort of magick - the term applied by some of our present day natural religions for supernatural invocations applied by humans to try to control nature. The rule and law that physics posits seem just as supernatural.

The trouble is, all of physics is “supposed” to be verifiable by experiment for anyone to see, not just by priests and priestesses or shamans and medicine men. Further trouble is, it is theoretically impossible to validate anew a large enough group of theories to validate anything important in a real and adequate sense. So, the statement about verifiability is itself theoretically unfalsifiable.

So, existentially speaking, since "seeming is being", if it appears this way to most everyone, it may as well be so. And so, magick may as well be real.

Science is still valuable, of course. But, science cannot debunk religion because religion comes from a completely different direction. Religion and science are two different metaphoric languages. Nobody can debunk a language.