Neo-Cosmos

If this author was a Mafia gangster

2012-01-27T11:50:00.010-06:00

If this author was a Mafia gangster

If the author was a Mafia gangster, a really smooth big-time operator who had to hire a full time personal attorney to defend him from diverse criminal charges, he might admonish his lawyer: “I do not need you to tell me so very simply just exactly what I can and cannot do. I want you to advise me precisely how to do what I want! Capisci?”

Now, the author concedes that GR, as it is most commonly interpreted, regards the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field as impossible. But as a system of sixteen complicated simultaneous nonlinear homogeneous partial differential equations - correct him if he is wrong, his having never actually done this - one must make some assumptions and define some boundary conditions in order just to begin to solve them. When this is done, one determines only the coefficients of these equations, many of which will be zero if one is lucky. The remainder will sum to at least one additional partial differential equation, whereupon more of the terms may cancel and drop out, especially after we apply “suitable” multipliers. This simplifying process is one of the main goals of many of the assumptions and boundary conditions and without which the equations might be unsolvable.

Often, the simplifying assumptions and the artificial boundary conditions may amount to gross oversimplification.

This final differential equation(s) must still be solved (integrated) and so, even more assumptions and boundary conditions must be assigned in order to do so. When this is done shrewdly, the equations can indeed be solved whereupon the results are equations that can be regarded as a set of physical rules that can be tested experimentally or observationally. Like the Friedmann equations under the FLRW metric.

The author finds it difficult to believe that there is no way to select assumptions and define boundary conditions realistically in such a way as to permit the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field. This, especially when, in the case of the Friedmann equations for example, there happens to be a parameter designated ρ/ρ_crit which determines whether the whole universe is spherical (closed), flat (perfectly Euclidian in both time and space) or hyperbolic (open).

The author knows that this is not quite relevant, so please do not focus on this stupid little example and try to tear it to pieces. But, this is mentioned just to show that one can redirect solutions of GR toward hyperbolic results so very easily just by means of solutions having some mere adjustable parameters.

Einstein cannot have been so inflexible that he would have written a theory that could be so rigidly used to prohibit reality. Such a prohibition would be a XXX atrocity wrought by a Grade AAA genius! Ha Ha!

Let us not promulgate or propagate any such atrocities of our own.

Author’s challenge: a case of fine Spanish wine (NOT Italian; capisci?) to the understanding personality who can help him find a way to “force” GR to do want he wants! I am a biased scientist. But, at least I admit it.

In the meantime, all he is saying below is that there is sufficient reason to go ahead and allow the hyperbolic field as a postulate. The ideas below are not meant to be picked apart and eaten alive. But, they should still be digested. They are not logically necessary and sufficient, so demolishing them may be pointless. They are meant only to illustrate the notion that to allow the hyperbolic field as a postulate might make good practical sense.

As acknowledged above, the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field (HBHF) is said to be prohibited by common very reasonable interpretations of general relativity. But, the consequences of finding some realistic loophole, some valid formulation of the HBHF are potentially momentous. They may even be capable of causing a revolutionary paradigm shift in the science of cosmology. Reasons that could motivate the search for some means to validate the HBHF are manifold.

1.) The HBHF field can explain the anomalous orbital velocity distribution of stars in galaxies.

2.) The HBHF can explain anomalous velocity distributions of galaxies in galactic clusters.

3.) HBHFs can explain the dependencies and magnitudes of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. It can even explain the progressive changes in the SZ differential redshift offset effects that are seen when this phenomenon is observed to occur through large voids closer and closer to Earth.

4.) The HBHF can explain the apparent offsets in the barycenters of colliding galactic clusters – the so-called “Bullet Cluster effect”.

5.) The peculiar galactic thermal distribution effects can be traced to the HBHF.

6.) The HBHF can more fully explain gravitational lensing phenomena.

7.) The HBHF can explain the inhomogeneity that is seen to have developed in the early universe, said inhomogeneity having been present since before the time of “recombination” of electrons with atomic nuclei. (This inhomogeneity probably persisted as the hot plasma produced from the Big Bang “recombined” to produce now greatly redshifted emission of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). Acoustic variation and long prior quantum perturbations are said to have been insufficient to fully account for the deviations that are now observed in the CMB.)

8.) The HBHF process in 7.) can provide a confirmatory rationale for the Inflation theory of cosmogenesis. An Inflationary Big Bang, with the “inflaton” behaving like a hyper-massive, decaying, excited, quantum, fundamental point particle might have resulted in a large number of big primordial black holes as well as a lot of electromagnetic energy and many subatomic particles. This decay debris as these primordial black holes, with their super-extensive hyperbolic gravitational fields, would serve to induce an unusually broad gravitational “halo” effect similar to the one postulated for Dark Matter that is supposed to have been largely responsible for the inhomogeneity observed today in the CMB and in the actual observed distribution of galaxies.

9.) An extension of the HBHF hypothesis to the whole universe can provide a mechanism for a positive lambda in the LCDM Friedmann model of the universe. But, the label “lambda cold dark matter” might be replaced by the “lambda apparent cold dark matter” or LACDM model, since “cold dark matter” will then have been seen to be utterly superfluous.

One angle to deal with criticism along the lines of Birkhoff’s Theorem and its siblings might be to postulate that a black hole is wholly a quantum object so that its gravitational field is really a quantum field of a different form from the kind of gravity in GR. Perhaps Alan Guth’s “inflaton field” is related to gravity, but being hyper-excited is not actually gravity, exactly. And, it could have a hyperbolic normalizable form because it originates, not in a Hugh Everett style meta-universe, but in an “infra-universe” or “sub-space” of fewer dimensions.

So, even according to present interpretations of GR, it could then indeed be hyperbolic in its mathematical description. This “Many Worlds” interpretation of the nature of black holes and/or the Inflaton Particle may include laws of physics that no longer pertain except in regard to black holes, especially since black holes involve physically real singularities. Inside black holes, the laws of physics not only may break down (so it is impossible to say what rules may be valid and what rules are struck down), but may be delocalized outside the singularity and even far outside the event horizon. And, yes, the author knows that he speaks of black holes and the whole universe in the same breath.

After all, if the universe was once a quantum entity, then it still is. Macroscopic quantum effects should still be discernable in larger systems than in just tiny globs of Bose-Einstein condensates. Would super-massive black holes be large enough for you? Yuk Yuk!

The contention that some future theory of quantum gravity will erase the physically real singularities in black holes is like a dream. The author thinks that theoretical physicists have been thrashing around for long enough. It is time to acknowledge that no such TOE or GUT will be forthcoming. No GUT has been proposed that uniquely and competently predicts anything new that has actually been verified, is falsifiable and actually unifies what it claims to unify.

So yes, a theory of quantum gravity has an anticipated feature wherein it will not result in any singularities or event horizons. And thus, it will have no black holes. But, there is a catch:

Recently, attention has been drawn to the fuzzball model in string theory. Based on calculations for particular situations, the hypothesis suggests that, in general, the individual states of a black hole solution might not have an event horizon or singularity. But, for an actual observer, the statistical average of such states may appear just like an ordinary black hole in the lenses of general relativity.

(to be continued)

If this author was a Mafia gangster (continued)

2012-01-27T10:51:00.013-06:00

If this author was a Mafia gangster (continued)

In other words: What’s the difference? No observer can experience an individual quantum state, but only the sum of said states as a total probability density of states that emerges ultimately as P = 1. So, the quantum quasi-singularity of a black hole must appear as if it is a real singularity. This could be construed as quantum relativistic existentialism. Seeming is being. Or, according to logical positivism, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck and looks like a duck – it’s a duck. And, if it is roasted, it will smell and taste like duck too.

People like to forget the correspondence principle. If general relativity is real, quantum relativity must endorse it and vice versa. In a GUT or TOE, one can never be used to negate the other or else they are both false.

Once again, all that the author is saying

herein is that there is sufficient reason to go right ahead and allow the hyperbolic G field as a postulate. We shall figure out the theoretical justification later. The ideas below are not to be gnawed apart and eaten alive. But, they should still be digested. They are not at all logically necessary and sufficient, so their demolition may be pointless. They are meant merely to illustrate the notion that to allow the hyperbolic field as a simple plain postulate might conceivably make good practical sense.

A 2-D origin of the universe is not inconceivable. And, 2-D components of a non-spherical 3-D gravitational field are not ruled out. One can imagine that 2-D cosmogenesis or galactic orbital motion around a black hole was conceived when such motion or even the entire universe began to unfold or deconvolve from a compactified form, perhaps like opening (or closing) a child’s “pop-up” book. So, the universe may be deconvolving and galactic SMBHs are reconvolving – they are unfolding and refolding exactly as they should*.

The aforementioned rationale would include Guth’s hypothesis of an ultra- energetic hyper-massive “inflaton” point particle in a super-excited “inflaton field” that decomposed, decayed or deconvolved from the a false vacuum, thus forming our universe. It seems unlikely that the inflaton particle would have decayed directly into gazillions** of photons and little fundamental particles directly, all at once. This is not the way short lived excited particles typically decay. It probably split first into several quantum “fields” (but NOT gravity because gravity might have been already present, perhaps as the ground state of the inflaton field at the floor of the false vacuum) then thousands, and then millions of large black holes (the enhanced gravitational fields of which constituted Dark Matter) and simultaneously and/or subsequently into a lot of electromagnetic energy as well as many small particles.

The inflaton gravity-like field itself also surely would not have collapsed or changed all at once. Its time dependent quantum transition might have been a process that may still be going on. If the universe was once a quantum entity, then it still is. Then, the present epoch’s continued breakdown of the residual inflaton field may act like gravity in whatever proper kind of spacetime it may need to give a hyperbolic asymptotic effect for the whole universe (so that it would have a higher potential energy than the ground state inverse square field).

In an infinite array of 2-D slices (if necessary to allow the HBHF) the universe HBHF’s ongoing stacked or packed 2-D asymptotic cross sections might devolve or transform into the lower energy 3-D inverse square gravitational field. This process might then result in acceleration of the expansion of the universe and putative Dark Energy.

Or else, a black hole is a tunnel or portal to another universe (Everett’s “Many Worlds” interpretation of QM) with different physical laws spilling over into our world and which simply do not prohibit the HBHF.

Another avenue might be to say that a super-massive black hole galactic gravitational field can be hyperbolic by virtue of analytic pure geometry in a non-Euclidian space, by an appeal to Schwartzschild’s analysis which certainly includes a potentially non-Euclidian metric and to Kretschmann’s invariance which does not depend on any coordinate system. Then, if proper assumptions are made and correct boundary conditions are set, GR cannot be seen to override these sets of principles, however fundamental GR itself may be.

As well, under the circumstances that would allow F = GMm/kr, GR might not be seen to trump the symmetry argument that is used to extend the asymptotic hyperbolic field to the far right on the ordinate of a gravitational field strength diagram. (Such a diagram needs to be given some latitude because it is a plot in 2-D Euclidian space, LOL). Symmetry representation is one of the most powerful tools available to the quantum physicist.

With additional assumptions or slightly different boundary conditions, the Schwartzschild treatment and Kretschmann’s invariance will still work if the overall geometry of spacetime in the broader galactic zone around a black hole is not Euclidian, such that this whole local space could be strongly hyperbolic. And, there may be a way around the necessity to consider gravity as always operating under an inverse square relation, especially if there are “perturbations” that are really more like very strong distortions (like a train wreck distorts the rail cars) so much so that perturbation principles cannot reliably be used for a mathematical description of any real black hole.

The spacetime geometry in the distortion zone of a galaxy or galactic cluster containing black holes may be so strongly warped and hyperbolic in nature that any type of field, hyperbolic or not, can exist, persist and never cease to desist. Yet the overall hyperbolic or “open” geometry of the universe may be counterbalanced by the mere existence of all the matter and energy that it contains so as to “behave” like it might be flat. But acceleration of Hubble expansion means that, if the universe is not open at present, it “soon” will be.

By the way, the hyperbolic gravitational field, being quantum normalizable, could be characterized, perhaps, as also pertaining to the Higgs field and the Higgs boson.

Therefore, the author thinks that there is something fishy about the way GR is used and Birkhoff’s Theorem and its siblings are cited in order to put the kibosh on the HBHF.

All this author is saying, once again, is that there is sufficient reason to go ahead and allow the HBHF as a postulate. The above notions are not meant to be picked apart by intellectual sharks, however kindly, gentle, articulate, well meaning, gifted and dedicated. These ideas are not logically necessary and sufficient, so their utter demolition may be pointless anyway. They are meant only to illustrate an idea, not to prove it. This is that to allow the HBHF as a postulate might make very good practical sense, eventually.

Let us do this in the same way that Louis DeBroglie promulgated the postulate that the Bohr planetary model of the atom that he defended simply did not and could not undergo an “ultraviolet catastrophe” as classical physicists insisted that it must. DeBroglie almost single handedly invented quantum mechanics by means of his postulate. But, he had a little help from Albert Einstein, Irwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, P.A.M. Dirac and a few others.

This is what is needed now. Some help. If you or someone you know can collaborate on a paper for the Astrophysical Journal or some other platform, please consider it.

Furthermore, allowing the HBHF may provide yet another link between quantum mechanics and general relativity. There are a number of links already and when we forge enough critical connections we will have a ready-made unified theory of quantum gravity without having made any special fuss. We need not invent seemingly unfalsifiable, incompetently unpredictive, almost infinitely numerous, unmitigated psychedelically novel and inordinately complex hypotheses. The author hopes that he is wrong but, such as these look like a whole boatload of Aristotelian theories of baroque “epicycles” that might accomplish little new that is uniquely proven. That is, except to satisfy the anal retentive urges of some who may otherwise be very fine workers, what purpose is to be served?

Theoretical physicists have long been fascinated by Eastern philosophies. They say that many principles of modern physics, including relativity, are reflected by philosophical concepts therein that are millennia old. The philosophical point that they choose to ignore is the tenet of “Yin & Yang”. Why should we not be satisfied with “two sides to the same coin”? Quantum mechanics and general relativity are not truly in opposition in any way. They do not address the same issues. They may be mathematically incompatible largely because they were assembled by different people who used different symbolic conventions and starkly different initial concepts. But, why should one necessarily be able to express gravity on an exceedingly small quantum scale? What for? Why should we be able to compute the properties of a galactic cluster from quantum principles? Why?

* After Desiderata by Max Ermann

** A gazillion is a number about equal to the total number of massive bodies, tiny fundamental particles and photons that were ever present as the inflationary Big Bang proceeded toward the time of “recombination” and far beyond. It is much larger than a googolplex. LOL

. . . Mafia Gangster (continued)

2012-01-26T08:37:00.036-06:00

. . . . . . . . Mafia Gangster (continued again)

So what? If computations show that gravity becomes infinitely strong when the distances between even very tiny almost massless objects becomes excruciatingly small, maybe we can learn something about what may have held the “inflaton” infinitely dense point particle together before the Big Bang.

Gravitational Field Strength

and

Potential Energy Diagrams

for the

Inverse Square and Hyperbolic Cases

Figure 1

Figure 2

The Figure 1 caption remarks that interpretations of Birkhoff’s Theorem and its siblings may well be misinformed. One such common misinterpretation is outlined in detail by Kristin Schleich & Donald M. Witt, A simple proof of Birkhoff's theorem for cosmological constant, arXiv:0908.4110v2, wherein they prove that the common belief that Birkhoff's Theorem implies staticity is false for the case of a positive cosmological constant. So, it is not the various theorems themselves that may be a problem, it is the ways in which they and GR are commonly interpreted which could be at fault.

Let us use whatever type of realistic interpretation of GR equations that might be needed to allow the HBHF.

Figure 2 presents plots of the equations

1.) y = ln(x)

and

2.) y = -1/x +1

according to common axes and equally scaled in such a way as to accurately represent the overall relative shapes of an inverse square gravitational potential energy diagram (2.) and a hyperbolic gravitational force P.E. diagram (1.). Note that P.E. keeps increasing without bound to the right in the case of the hyperbolic black hole P.E. trace which is actually a plot of ln(x) here.

What this really might mean is that the cosmological influence of black holes might extend to infinity as a strong influence, or to whatever passes for infinity in our universe. So, the black hole gravitational effect may pervade the space well beyond a galaxy wherein it is contained, far beyond the space in a galactic cluster wherein BHs may be found and beyond even the envelope of galactic super-clusters or “walls” into large voids where the HBHF’s slow “dilution” going deeper into the void could amplify the effect of such a void vis a vis the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.

In other words, the hyperbolic super-massive black hole gravitational effect might mimic a “halo” of Dark Matter that envelopes galaxies and galactic clusters. It could even deepen the difference between the gravitational fields present in large superclusters or galactic “walls” and the relative absence or “dilution” of said fields by Hubble expansion effects deep inside voids.

Growth of SMBHs over long periods of time by accretion in the nuclei of galaxies might cause their super-extensive hyperbolic gravitational fields to further deepen the differences between walls or super-clusters and large voids so that a process or time-series of change in the SZ effect is observed as said voids are examined closer and closer to earth. This may impact the evidence interpreted in support of acceleration and “Dark Energy”.

If the hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field can be generalized to the entire universe, its false vacuum transformation or time dependent quantum-like transition to a ground state inverse square gravitational field may have begun with the Big Bang. And, it might be characterized as a process that is still ongoing. So, false vacuum potential energy from a higher energy hyperbolic gravitational form, as in the red curve, might become available kinematically to objects under the influence of the familiar inverse square gravitational potential energy, consistent with the black curve.

Perhaps the nature of black holes includes re-establishment of an infinite series of false vacuum 2-D slices and a stack of excited inflaton fields inside the event horizon that can penetrate the horizon and act like the hyperbolic field that the author postulates.

In Fig. 2, acceleration of Hubble expansion would become apparent after the curves begin to substantially diverge (diagrammatically and not to scale) at “about” x » 1.5. The present time, t, or the present scale factor of the universe, a(t) could be represented to be “located” at maybe around x (or y) » 3.5 so that acceleration becomes apparent at maybe around 30 - 40% of the way toward t = 1, the present, or toward a(1) = 1, the present era scale factor.

If we took the time, we could make these diagrams to scale so that actual predictions or depictions of real observations could be symbolized. Crudely diagrammatic or not, this scenario seems to be close to what may have been actually observed. Of course, it may be said that these curves were shrewdly constructed in an artificial manner that was deliberately meant to show this very thing. But, it was too easy to be an accident and this author is not smart enough to have contrived it.

Look at the enormous difference between the red curve and the black curve to the left of r = x = 1. This difference grows and becomes virtually infinite as one moves his attention further to the left, approaching the abscissa. Maybe this would provide a rational for the spark of initial inflation, which may then be said to have ended at r = x = 1, not after just a few seconds. Then, to the right of r = x = 1, the curves diverge again as the universe experiences acceleration or “reinflation”, gaining new vigor from the infusion of energy from the hyperbolic field’s current residual false vacuum gravity-like field.

Well intentioned, sincere, dedicated and very intelligent people

have tried to prove that the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field is impossible. They may sometimes use direct application of GR without prior recourse to any metric. Sometimes they have used simple geometry and the definition of luminous, gravitational or magnetic flux. Such geometric arguments are circular because these definitions presume what is to be proven (they beg the question).

But, one has to solve GR for a metric first, and then use even more assumptions and boundary conditions to solve for a useful equation(s) that can be experimentally or observationally tested. Of course, using definitions that presuppose their conclusion or using the conventional multiple layers of assumptions and boundary conditions, one must logically arrive at the notion that the form of the gravitational field has to be an inverse square relation in any universe with 3 spatial dimensions. Many Worlds notions do not appear in GR.

It seems as if there is actually no way to explicitly acknowledge the physical reality of a black hole singularity in any way in superficial treatments of GR. Unless such proofs explicitly treat the singularity as physically real, and which is not merely another simple internal “distribution of matter”, they may end up proving nothing. Whatever odd geometry, queer boundary conditions or kooky assumptions may be realistically necessary to admit the HBHF, they should be considered.

Let’s face it. Black holes are real and unique. We need to treat them mathematically this way, as if the central singularity is not a myth, nonexistent TOEs or GUTs notwithstanding. Some observably exceptional properties must propagate far beyond the black holes’ unobservable event horizons or else black holes are just ordinary objects in an increasingly dull universe.

So, if this is to become the day of the ghostly GUT (somewhat like The Day of the Triffids or, perhaps, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers , or even The Night of the Living Dead – heh heh!), cosmology may already be “virtually” dead. We may not have to wait another 27 billion years for the universe to expand beyond cosmological causal contact.

Finally, speaking of renormalizability, the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field may be renormalizable precisely because it is not represented by an inverse square relation. So, perhaps this would be a means to force gravity into the rigid klogs of quantum dynamics. The advantages and therefore the motivation to admit the hyperbolic gravitational field, even as it may be an unlikely postulate, may be much greater than anyone thinks.

Figure 3

In Fig. 3, correction: reference should have been made to the "excited state of the false vacuum 'inflaton field' ". Sorry.

It may seem like we must postulate a prior existence of the inflaton particle's excited inflaton field as an hyper-excited gravitational field that existed when the inflaton particle came into existence as a very high probability "virtual" particle that has yet to find its annihilation partner. Maybe this is the real meaning of the "Ekpyrotic Theory" of colloding "branes".

Figure 4

We could keep Newton for laughs by joking that F = GMm/r^1.999 , there being no such thing as a truly real and distinct perfect sphere in the locally distorted geometry of our universe, at least not anywhere near black holes. What does in fact happen to a gravitational field if it is not spherically symmetric as all the theorems presume? If it can be used at all, might perturbation theory have to introduce an hyperbolic field component? This is almost Newtonian F equation may be renormalizable too because it is not quite an inverse square relation. Ugh! This could be a form of MOND, modified Newtonian dynamics. Everyone knows that all modified gravitational field theories are intrinsically illegitimate (LOL).

Click to see this image series in detail:

http://www.fotothing.com/Gak/photo/d98a611bae38b8ed1ac943e8344717d1/

Dark Matter is an unnecessary ad hoc fix

2012-01-08T13:16:00.008-06:00

Dark Matter is an unnecessary ad hoc fix to fill in the blanks in the Friedmann model under the FLRW metric. Galactic supermassive black-holes exist as true physical singularities according to the Kretschmann invariant and Schwartzchild's analysis. Therefore, as point masses, they must possess a hyperbolic (1/kr) gravitational field, NOT a field that falls off as 1/r². Now, k = constant = 1m, S.I., for dimensional integrity. It is not true that GR cannot tolerate hyperbolic spacetime geometries. "The universe is hyperbolic." said Albert Einstein in his classic paper of 1915.

An hyperbolic field will give constant orbital acceleration to orbiting bodies as far from the center of a black-hole as we might like to measure. This means that bodies near the periphery of a galaxy should seem to move at constant velocity because rotational acceleration does not drop to near zero there as with a 1/r² inverse square law. This constant velocity distribution effect has actually been measured and has given rise to the notion of Dark Matter.

Gravitation does not fall nearest to zero between galaxies in a cluster either. So they too can bend light and affect redshifts in ways that mimic Dark Matter. The rotation of galaxies in clusters is also influenced by the black-holes that they contain with their 1/kr gravitational potential profiles. The not quite counterbalanced redshift effects in the Sunyaev-Zeldovich phenomenon are influence by the hyperbolic galactic and galactic cluster gravitational fields that exist as light falls out of such clusters and super-clusters into a large void and as it climbs out of it again after the universe has expanded by another billion light years or more.

Scientists are mapping, not Dark Matter, but the huge extent of the network of hyperbolic galactic and super-galactic gravitational fields that behave like Dark Matter because of the mathematical properties of the hyperbolic gravitational field are similar to That expected for Dark Matter.

Primordial massive and supermassive black-holes with their 1/kr galactic gravitational fields can also mimic the “halos” of dark Matter that are postulated to have existed just after the big bang and before the emission of the cosmic microwave background. There is nothing that Dark Matter explains that cannot be accounted for just as well or better by the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field.

The hyperbolic 1/kr supermassive black-hole galactic gravitational field explains “the Dark Matter Effect” without Dark Matter and it is more parsimonious and is a falsifiable hypothesis, unlike Dark Matter

The conditions for validity of Birkhoff’s Theorem are not met for real black-holes. Therefore, Birkhoff’s Theorem does not apply. It sometimes may be used as a first approximation, but it cannot be depended upon as a rigid rule for precise calculations. “The physics near the extreme curvature of a black-hole singularity is not well defined”. This covers Birkhoff’s too.

By the way, any entity that possesses mass by virtue of its motion will be influenced by the gravitational fields that it encounters. It is not so much that a gas mimicking Dark Matter may be very much colder than other gases that such an entity might encounter, but whether such a gas may be much denser. But absolute zero is absolute. Only ground state vibration modes are allowed for gases at absolute zero, translational motion does not exist at K = 0 because it implies a temperature, T > 0 K. So, gases must not exist either. They must be solid crystals. Also, such ground state vibrational modes are only for multi-atom molecules. Intergalactic gas is almost non-existent, is not denser and is not a factor, so it cannot mimic Dark Matter.

No Trouble with Tribbles

2012-01-02T07:06:00.010-06:00

NO TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES

There is no trouble with Birkhoff’s Theorem which says: All gravity fields (including BHs’) act like normal Newtonian fields because all gravity fields drop out of GR naturally and so must be “asymptotically flat”, that is, they must vanish at large distances, i.e. they must follow an inverse square law.

BUT, Birkhoff is based on the particulars of the massive bodies that are treated, like stars; such particulars as the metric are used as premises. The theorem says any unperturbed spherically symmetric field must be asymptotically flat because any mass already behaves as if all its mass was concentrated at the center. It already behaves like a point mass. So, Birkhoff should rule out the hyperbolic (1/kr) supermassive Black-Hole singular galactic gravitational field.

Yet, none of the BH scenarios that are theoretically covered can be considered real. All real BHs are perturbed beyond recognition by their rapid rotation and by their immense quantities of environmental matter and energy, including enormous external gravity fields. Such fields emanate from huge galactic disks or from other whole galaxies with their own embedded supermassive BHs. The direct superposition of such axially coincident and rotationally concurrent mass concentrations with their enormous gravitational fields may well augment the black-hole field in such a way as to force it into compliance with the hyperbolic field "law" for black-holes. Relativistic frame dragging alone could effect this process.

Real conditions should invalidate the theorem.

Also, one critical consideration is that black-holes are NOT mere point masses. They have been shown by Kretschmann and Schwartzchild to be physically real as infinitely dense point particles (within Heisenberg limits) with an infinitely deep gravitational potential well. They are NOT like a planet or a star. This is not properly reflected in the metrics with their singularities necessarily excluded, and is not adequately treated by Birkhoff, or else it represents an exception. Cosmologists say that the laws of physics break down at the intense spacetime curvatures present near the singularity of a black-hole. What else might this means except that even Birkhoff's Theorem cannot be depended upon. These observations may indicate a flaw or shortcoming in the way that Birkhoff's theorem and general relativity are interpreted for spacetimes in the vicinity of black-holes, particularly near the singularity at r = 0.

Birkhoff used the Schwartzchild Metric. But, he could not rightly use the existence of an infinitely deep gravitational well or an infinitely dense point particle because these singular infinities cannot be handled normally. “The physics at a singularity is not well defined.”

It is far easier to accept the possibility of a flaw or exception than to accept the idea of some sort of unfalsifiable Dark Matter comprised of, say, undetectable WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles). By their very nature WIMPs are supposed to be so “weakly interacting” that they cannot even show up in particle accelerator experiments. The WIMP hypothesis is formulated to be as unfalsifiable as any of the other Dark Matter proposals. As such, it does not merit the label “science”. It is more like science fiction.

So, an hyperbolic (F = GMm/kr) supermassive BH galactic gravity field is possible after all: k = constant = 1m (S.I.), for dimensional integrity. Einstein referred to his equations as being hyperbolic/elliptical in nature. That is, hyperbolic geometry is not outside the realm of GR.

Kretschmann’s invariance and Schwartzchild’s analysis mean that the singularity at the core of a BH is physically real. From our external frame of reference, the exact location of a BH singularity cannot be found because of the Heisenberg limit. So, from our external perspective, a BH core density and central gravity strength cannot be directly “measured” to be “infinite”. But, mathematically, it is so.

And, elementary analytic geometry says that an infinitely deep graphical gravity potential growing from an hugely heavy infinitely dense point mass MUST be asymptotic in nature (NOT asymptotically flat). By symmetry, the other arm of the graphical curve must be asymptotic too, the definition of a hyperbola.

If you can collaborate on a paper, let us prove that an hyperbolic spacetime geometry around a realistic supermassive black-hole can be genuine and that the postulated hyperbolic (1/kr) field can, indeed, account for all effects currently ascribed to so-called “Dark Matter”. As a partner, of course, I shall do a yeoman’s share of work, including the scut-work of referencing & literature search. I am in an ideal position to do this!

garyakent@aol.com

"It is far easier and demonstrates much less intelligence to shoot down an idea than to show how to make it work."

What Imbues the Higgs with Mass?

2011-12-22T11:34:00.002-06:00

What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no? In some way or another, this is true. If we were all in the business of writing texts, we would be paid. OR, we would pay journals to publish our junk if we wanted to propound fully qualified articles or developed papers. I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists’ descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations and recount their descriptions just to make a point. There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model.

Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint. The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, if they are already merged as best they can be?

This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the same reality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is a fantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud

Much less than mass, there is no implicit validated account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand ...

Part 2 Try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle

2011-12-22T11:08:00.002-06:00

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

Suddenly, it decays. It decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else").

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle, (The Big Barf). Because of dependence on random processes and/or temperature, the daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson" distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. Yet, it would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way.

Perhaps this process would indeed result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

Note that this process will result in sufficient inhomogeneity without invoking acoustic anomalies, quantum instabilities or other forms of additional turbulence to give the energy/mass distribution we see today, especially in the CMB.

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solution set to the simultaneous homogeneous nonlinear partial differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored.

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are. Note that k = 1m is an explicit reminder that we deal with a gravitational singularity here.

Part 3 ... Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker

2011-12-22T10:21:00.014-06:00

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where?

WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole galactic gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like such quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor including, and especially, Scripture. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. Prodessionals' neglect of this principle is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves.

Gak

No cynic is happy.

Dark Energy & Dark Matter As Pseudoscience

2011-09-01T11:52:00.005-05:00

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent and that they were in deep collusion. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together.

The data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to make the two data sets conform, together, they had to apply an "adjustment". This fudge factor was used to bring the data of one set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points. The sense of this fudge factor alone is the sole "evidence" that they cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. The adjustment could have been made in the other sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating. But this is unexciting, uninteresting and unmarketable. So acceleration was "in".

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) effect does not recognize that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such fields decline as 1/r - hyperbolically (not as 1/r^2 or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of gravity).

The difference between the hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of supernatural "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the concoction of spiritual Dark Energy to account for non-existent "acceleration".

So, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation? The easiest way is to postulate that the universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern.

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive, it would account for the CMB characteristics, the red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and the SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy. In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are scams on the scale of Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds. Clearly, this kind of pseudoscience is still going on today!

Dear American Gypsie

2010-06-21T20:01:00.006-05:00

In reply to AmericanGypsie for the comment given several posts ago:

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 approximate size of the observable universe (U). 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). Brightness measurements alone indicated the universe is very large and very old.

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 U 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 that they have no serious basis just because they are popular.

Black-Hole Gravitational Field

2010-03-19T09:35:00.009-05:00

The Hyperbolic

Black-Hole Field Anomaly

Supermassive black-holes pervade the universe. In the field of our view, within the light cone of our observational limit, there are over 200 billion supermassive black holes residing at the centers of large galaxies. There are probably many more large naked black holes residing in enormous dust clouds or simply standing alone as bald singularities in elliptical galaxies and globular clusters and within galactic clusters and superclusters. These invisible black-holes simply have not had enough time to accumulate a large cloak of glowing matter that emits light by virtue of its in-fall to their event horizons. Therefore, they are truly black.

Black-holes and their hyperbolic gravitational fields fully account for the dark matter necessary to keep galaxies spinning at their observed rates and to bind galactic clusters and superclusters. If there are large enough numbers of such black holes to do this job, then the assumption of the Cosmological Principle is dead wrong by this fact alone.

It is as though the universe is made of Swiss cheese and we have assumed it is made of white cheddar. It is well known that a medium filled with small bubbles or tiny solid particles behaves very differently toward the propagation of any type of energy through it. Numerous small bubbles, for instance, lower the speed of sound and affect the way a medium like water absorbs microwaves. Shock waves propagate so differently that the behavior of the explosion front in the conventional chemical explosive has to be taken into account in the design of nuclear weapons. Bubbles and dispersed solids must be avoided.

When assumptions are made regarding the type of "perfect fluid" of which the universe is made we cannot disregard exceptional circumstances like the presence of a froth of black-holes embedded within it. It matters little that there are good reasons for using approximations like the Cosmological Principle. Something must be done to allow the formulation of comprehensible theory giving the means for tractable calculation. But, this theory and such calculation must be regarded as only approximate. Unless steps are taken to greatly refine theory and bring calculations up to a much higher standard, there shall be no such thing as "precision cosmology".

The hyperbolic black-hole (HBH) gravitational fields, stemming from supermassive black-holes at the centers of galaxies, extend far beyond the visible boundaries of the galaxies themselves. The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) effect shows that these fields may be virtually infinite in extent. If this is so, the spacetime continuum that is actually present in the universe is very different from the one that Einstein assumed. These oversimplifications are implicit in the Friedmann LeMaitre Robertson Walker metric that Friedmann used to formulate the form of the General Relativity equations that cosmologists commonly use. In other words, the whole structure upon which is built the argument for acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe and the existence of dark energy (not to mention dark matter) is deeply suspect.

It is just too bad, so sad, that so many physicists have devoted whole careers to mastering the mathematics of General Relativity from the perspective of the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations. These anachronistic personalities will simply have to die off or retire before we can make progress. After all, there is some truth in the saying about physicists who see everything in terms of some simplifying assumption. "First, we assume a perfect sphere." is not how to do critical science deserving of massive funding.

Only spacetime itself is homogeneous and isotropic. But, once it becomes filled with supermassive black-holes and other dark naked singularities, it cannot be treated this way with any degree of precision or accuracy. Some investigators have already picked up on this fact. They are formulating new cosmologies with different metrics and are abandoning the oversimplified assumptions that were designed to make calculations easy. Much too easy. They have come to appreciate the power of supercomputers and advanced mathematical logic programs to handle more realistic models of the universe. This twenty-first century trend is only just beginning. The real revolution in cosmology has yet to come. It will be a counterrevolution, for the twentieth century is dead.
　
　
　

Modified Newtonian Dynamics

2010-03-18T15:42:00.010-05:00

MODIFIED NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS AND THE BLACK-HOLE HYPERBOLIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

Albert Einstein easily derived and wrote a relativistic differential equation that was guaranteed to reproduce Newton's Law of Gravity when it was integrated. He could have just as easily written a differential equation that reproduced MOND, but he didn't. He just didn't. He had no reason to do so since the various MOND observations had not been made. So, let no-one say that MOND contravenes relativity.

So, relativistically speaking, if we consider the definition of a black-hole, it must be accompanied by a very characteristic and very different gravitational field. Because it is a singularity, a single point-mass with infinite density (at the limit as the center is approached), it must possess a gravitational field that is defined and determined by its single point, its singular property. Its gravitational field must therefore approach an asymptote at radius = 0 and, and by symmetry, it must approach another asymptote at radius = infinity. This is the definition of a hyperbolic field, NOT one that follows Newton's inverse square law, which is parabolic.

If black-holes posses hyperbolic gravitational fields, then there is no mystery in MOND. No big deal. Look at this image of a whiteboard derivation of the hyperbolic black-hole (HBH) gravitational acceleration and velocity profile near a galaxy containing a supermassive black-hole at its center. On the whiteboard, I also have written a synopsis of the MOND development.

NOTE: In the HBH segment, r must be multiplied by k. Here, k = 1m (S.I.) for dimensional integrity. In other words, F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I.) all the extensions of F have the same caveat.

GO TO

HTTP://WWW.LONETREE-PICTURES.NET/

AND PRESS THE MOND BUTTON TO VIEW A BETTER VERSION OF THIS IMAGE.

Use the backarrow button <<--- to return here or else

you might close out of NEO-COSMOS

Of course, something must be done to compensate for the fact that (GM)^1/2 does not have the dimensions of a velocity, G x M not being divided by r. This could be resolved with the adjustable parameter ratio b/d having a dimension the same as 1/r. OR, better yet, multiply r by the absolute value of the unit vector of r, retaining the unit. This would be a mathematical acknowledgement that we are dealing with a singularity.

For MOND, Newtonian gravitational acceleration is denoted aN. The variant acceleration due to MOND expresses aN in terms of an acceleration that is modified by the function μ(a/a0), which is equal to 1 when the radius from the center is small enough for the overall gravitational acceleration to be large relative to the MOND constant, a0. When the putative acceleration is small relative to a0, μ is equal to a0 such that the equations on the lower left are satisfied. This happens when radius r is large enough for a2/a0 = aN = GM/r, and the total force of gravitational attraction enters the MOND regime. These values for r are equal to and beyond the point where the velocity distribution of stars encircling the galaxy in its outer regions becomes constant.

Remember, M = the mass of an entire galaxy with its black hole. M2 = the supermassive black-hole mass while M1 = mass of the stars in the disk inside the radius r, to a given star. This radius might enclose more than 95% of all the stars in the disk and so may as well be considered to enclose all of them. But, a graphical model would have to take a sliding percent enclosure into account in order to plot a theoretical velocity distribution. So, it will be a little while before I actually do this. Maybe I’ll just assume a Gaussian distribution for the number of stars with a given average velocity in the disc and a different Gaussian for the stars in the spheroidal bulge. The bulge must be chaotic and so it would follow different statistics. This is why the net velocity fades to zero in the bulge.

According to Newton’s inverse square law, velocity should fall off rapidly toward zero in this outer zone as the periphery is approached. But, observations show that it does not. Instead, it falls off much more slowly and becomes constant according to the vMOND equation on the lower right.

But, the hyperbolic field contribution to the overall galactic gravitational field shown as the blue curve, y2, in the graph above, gives precisely the same result. Thus, vMOND = vHBH. If it is admitted that black-holes are different, that they have special properties, among them that they are gravitational singularities, then this is not too surprising. In fact, it should have been thought of before, and it probably has. But, it is now being overlooked. I hope this effort on my part may prevent this oversight from being propagated indefinitely. Sorry, there will never be a Nobel for MOND.

Note that the usual depiction of the velocity profile of a spiral galaxy shows velocities rising to a maximum as one moves toward the center whereupon they fall off virtually to zero as one gets very close to r = 0. My simpler velocity distribution profile is for just one or for a very few stars. The standard picture of a maximum and fall-off in velocity occurs because stars get crowded approaching the center and their orbital paths become chaotic. As one moves closer in, just as many stars move clockwise as move counterclockwise (and on more nearly perpendicular trajectories relative to the galactic plane) and the net velocity declines. The stellar distribution becomes more spheroidal too, resulting in the classic galactic “bulge”. When I formulate my model, I will have to take all this into account as well. This is going to be fun.

It is interesting to imagine what a galaxy would look like if purely Newtonian F = ma = GMm/r2 ≠ GMm/r for large r. Then, v∞ ≠ (GM)^1/2 = constant. Instead, rotational velocity would rapidly fall off toward zero as r increases without bound. The stars would lag much further and further behind and the spiral arms would wrap around the center much more tightly, like the mainspring of an old wind-up clock. So, one can actually see the MOND effect by just looking.

This means that there may well be no such thing as dark matter or twin matter or any such Baroque complications festooning the simple picture of the universe that we, as scientists, should be looking for. It is in the nature of human beings to overdo. Dark matter and MOND are in danger of becoming vastly overdone.

So, now let me engage in a little bit of my own overdoing.

If this version of MOND is correct, there will never be a measurement of a0 obtained in the laboratory in a supersensitive Cavendish experiment. That is, not unless we can produce some sufficiently long-lived black-holes in the lab. Nor will evidence be found inside or just outside the solar system. HBH MOND requires participation of a black-hole. This prediction will never go over very well with a lot of important people, so it will not be readily accepted.

In elliptical and globular galaxies wherein the MOND effect may be observed, HBH MOND will require that one or more supermassive black-holes shall be found, naked black-holes at that. The intragalactic black-hole presence in galactic clusters and superclusters may not be enough to account for MOND in these objects either, so some naked black holes may well be found to be embedded within them too. Nobody is looking for them now, so it is not surprising that they have not yet been found.

The hyperbolic field concept can be extended to the entire universe, too. If it can be verified, it may go a long way toward an accounting for the mistaken interpretations of acceleration and dark energy in the universe. This would require that the primordial black-hole, the mother of all black-holes or MOAB, must have persisted in some form, probably greatly diminished, for a long time after it started to decay into the universe that we see now. In other words, the highly excited inflaton particle may have taken some time to deconvolve, decompose and collapse, so it may even still persist today, along with its hyperbolic field in which we may still be embedded.

But, if the inflaton paticle decayed and its hyperbolic gravitational field collapsed with it, a transitional Newtonian field rose up to replace it almost instantly. These would be other cases where entities expanded or contracted at many times the speed of light. In other words, the inflation process had reflections or reverberations that we still see today. The old hyperbolic field is not finished collapsing. The new Newtonian field is not finished rising. This would have subtle relativistic effects in their own right.

Let’s just hitch a ride on a really fast space-ship heading on a straight line for deep space in any direction with a destination rather more than 13.72 billion light years away and we just may be able to find out. But, it will take us considerably more than 13.72 billion years. More than 27.44 billions years. Still, surely by then, the MOAB hyperbolic field will have completely dissipated with little or no residual effects.

The good news is, if strange, weird science is needed to justify grant funding, this is it.

INEXPLICABLE REVISIONISM

2010-03-15T18:18:00.008-05:00

Some of Our Best Scientists

Have Shown Genius Level Negative IQs

Recently there has been an inexplicable reversal in the usual recitation of facts that scientists have been giving regarding the evidence for dark energy. Here is a quote from a current article on dark energy and dark matter that appears on a NASA website: "Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today."

This is grossly untrue. If this is what Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess have been saying, it is a gross distortion. In them, I am disappointed almost to tears. But, what else can I expect from the antigeniuses among us?

I have been tracking measurements of the Hubble constant for many years. The Hubble Space Telescope has measured H0 for the deep space SNe 1a as the highest yet recorded except for H0 determined for the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is even more "distant" and even older. As one plots H0 measurements against the average distances from Earth to the midpoints of the ranges of objects used in the observations, one obtains a very precise straight line in this scatter diagram. This linear regression line has a very high correlation coefficient (0.98) and a NEGATIVE slope stretching from the origin at t = 0 to now at t = 1.

Given that H0 is not really a constant, older accepted data along with current measurements of H0 show that H0 for very distant and old objects is larger than for nearer and younger objects. Nowhere in any of the peer reviewed publications of Perlmutter nor Riess is there explicit argument for acceleration or dark energy that does not subtly assume what it purports to prove. They never explain exactly how the reversal of common sense occurs that says the universe expansion rate is accelerating in the present era. They do not even acknowledge the reversal.

Commonly accepted facts have to be rewritten to accommodate this circular conclusion. History has to be revised. Accepted data clearly show that the expansion rate is decelerating. See http://www.lonetree-pictures.net/Graphical%20Model%20of%20the%20Universe.htm .

There is lots of evidence against dark energy. Recent papers casting doubt on the Cosmological Principle should be taken seriously. If we should be prepared to accept the many patches and ad hoc band-aids that dark energy requires, why can we not entertain some patches to explain away the so called "evidence" for it and help save the Scientific Method?

One does not validate a scientific principle by accumulating circumstantial evidence. Such are just anecdotes. One must formulate an antithesis; an opposite or negative hypothesis, and attempt to perform a critical or crucial experiment that would confirm or deny it. If this “null hypothesis” is confirmed, the original hypothesis is falsified or nullified. Dark energy is incapable of falsification and is thus as ineligible as a scientific hypothesis as Santa Claus or God Himself. To hold otherwise is to open the gate to superstition.

iua47nvm3p

2009-06-27T23:44:00.000-05:00

iua47nvm3p

Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Quintessence, Cosmological Constant

2009-03-11T18:14:00.005-05:00

Click on the title of this post and navigate to another forum or blog concerning origins of the universe.

George LeMaitre suggested that the universe should be expanding at a steady rate in the present time, and has been doing so for eons. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is indeed expanding at a rate that he determined and this rate has been called "the Hubble Constant".

It is now well established that the universe is expanding, but not at a constant rate. I believe that the universe's expansion is slowing down, or decelerating. Other scientists think it is accelerating.

My equations or the MODEL that I have developed, suggests that deceleration is the only way to explain all the facts and that acceleration, the model favored by many cosmologists, is not such a good account of reality.

Acceleration is concluded from a particular interpretation of some observations. It is not necessary to choose this interpretation.

In order to explain this acceleration, ad hoc postulates have been offered. These kinds of off-the-cuff explanations do not explain anything. They complicate matters instead. One of the complications this causes is that there must be some sort of "Dark Energy". DE might stem from Einstein's cosmological constant which he slap-dashedly stuffed into his theory of relativity.

DE is supposed to pervade the universe and is forcing it to expand at an ever increasing rate. Then, if there is such a thing, the total mass & energy inventory of the universe must be so much larger than was thought that this surprise has to be explained too. The trail of ad hoc postulates gets longer and longer as more band-aids are applied to a wound in the logic of the acceleration model.

Very recently it was found that the evolutionary development of galaxy clusters and superclusters is slowing down. This would be expected if the develoment of the whole universe is slowing down (decelerating). But, in order to keep the acceleration idea alive in the face of this fact, more band-aids are needed. More ad hoc fixes are required to make sense of this galactic cluster develpment retardation effect.

It's crazy.

There is no Dark Energy, never was and never will be.

Origin of the Universe in a Nutshell

2009-03-11T17:51:00.003-05:00

Click on the title of this post to navigate to the site where this quote originates:

"I have done my own studies on the Origins of the Universe and as far as our Origin is concerned it can only be theorized and not conclusived. Scientific Investigations had lead to some convincing theories but nothing more. As I posted before what we need to find is the ORIGIN OF SPACE which will lead to the ORIGINS OF ALL THINGS. The Oigins of the Universe is NOT THE ORIGIN OF SPACE. The Universe is like a guest of Space -- it occupies it. I believe that somehow science is missing an oversight. I will tried to explain it again --- space is an entity which at one time contain nothing -- it was empty. This means that after so much time, in our sense of time, something came to occupied it. That something was a pollution to the whole of Space. The problem that I'm having is, just how this something came into being --- thats my problem................................"

* * * * *

FluFlu writes that the stuff inside the universe must be separate from the universe itself. The matter and energy within it are of a different sort from the space it occupies. This is the classical view.

But, the Theory of Relativity, under intense scrutiny since 1905, has shown that matter, energy, space and time are all of the same fundamental essence. Space-time includes matter and energy by means of its plasticity and metamorphic talent. It is still called a "theory" only because we have not yet been able to observe the inner workings of other universes that might possess this same thread in their fabric. If we ever do observe other universes and we can discern such a thread, Einstein's theory will be referred to as the "Law of Relativity". It might be subsumed by some greater theory or law, but this has happened before to Newton's Laws, for instance, which were circumscribed by the "Theory" of Relativity. But they are still called laws.

The only theory in science that is more thoroughly confirmed is Quantum Theory. It too is called a theory only because we do not have instances of other universes to study wherein we can find this as a common thread. We should ignore the technicality because it is clear that "Quantum Law" governs the very nature of existence itself.

To be or not to be. That is the quantum question. Theoretically, there cannot be other universes that do not follow quantum law.

According to the current "standard model" of the universe and its origin, the expanding horizon that we can see with our telescopes may be extrapolated back to even earlier times. Due to the smooth nature of the trajectory that the universe seems to follow, this extrapolation can be extended almost to the very beginning. To do this, it helps to postulate an initial exponential "inflationary" expansion.

But, we cannot extrapolate all the way to t = 0, due only to another technicality. This limit is "theoretically" imposed by the idea that when the universe's history is run backward in time to the point when it must have been so very extremely dense and hot, then the basis for our normal intuitive understanding of physical laws breaks down, apparently.

But, I think that, solely for purely aesthetic reasons, physicists do not like to extrapolate the history of the universe to a point when it was smaller than a tiny distance derived from the definition of Planck's constant and younger than a fraction of a second smaller than a "Planck time". Well, O.K. It may not be necessary to go further than this anyway, but still, we do it.

According to the inflationary expansion hypothesis, the universe began when a virtual "point particle" materialized in the false vacuum and it failed to annihilate with its antiparticle, or else such annihilation is unecessary when virtual particles materialize in the vast energy sea of the false vacuum. Another view may be that there are orthogonal timelines to our own and annihilation simply has not and never will occur on our timeline.

The false vacuum acts like a huge quantity of superheated water. And the universe, remember, is a quantum entity: a particle or wave packet that is governed by quantum principles.

Quantum science is statistical in nature. It expresses events and processes in terms of probabilities. The appearance of a virtual particle is far more likely to occur in a very high energy state than in a lower one. This is because there are an infinite number of possible very high energy states while the number of potential lower energy states is limited by the fact that one arm of the infinite progression is cut off at zero. And, remember, the false vacuum is already a vast reservoir of almost infinite energy.

So, when the universe materialized, it instantly acted like a particle of dust in a cauldron of superheated water. This superheated "fluid" began to change phase. The initial catalytic high energy particle and a parcel of the false vacuum began to expand from a point, or from very near a point, to occupy a much larger and larger volume. Energy continuously transferred from the false vacuum to the new true vacuum of space as we know it, helping to fill it with energy in the form of extremely high energy light photons. As the universe expanded further, it began to cool, as expansion normally cools the contents of a system. High energy, intensely dense photons can indeed behave this way, as laser esperiments show.

And, its entropy also began to rise dramatically. When it had cooled far enough, various forms of matter began to condense out of that still small, dense volume of intense light. When it had cooled further, electrons suddenly were able to couple with protons, or with deuterium and helium nuclei, to give a dense neutral gas that was finally transparent to light itself. Previously, the matter/energy soup had been opaque.

The light that was present when this recombination process was complete is now detectable as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The light that had not condensed into matter was initially of very high energy, distributed according to a Maxwell distribution. The maximum in this distribution is now red-shifted down into the microwave region. But, because it exists within a very broad distribution, there are still a few remnants of this light that are presently still of an extremely high energy. This may be the source of some of the high energy cosmic rays that have been detected.

The hydrogen, deuterium and helium went on to form stars and galaxies while the universe expanded further. Some of the stars where so enormous that they "burned" their hydrgen/deuterium nuclear fuel very quickly and exploded as supernovae.

The cores of supernovae get so hot during this event and their existence in this state is limited in time so much that heavier elements like boron, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, sodium, iron and all the rest of the elements of the periodic table were able to form and become isolated. Once they were suddenly exposed to the lower density and temperatures of intertellar space, the heavier elements were "frozen out" and preserved. This residue of heavy elements mixed with leftover hydrogen and deuterium to form new stars. After several cycles like this, the newer stars had enough of these elements to become surrounded by protoplanetary disks of dust. From this dust came the planets, including our Earth and all its life.

Yes, as Carl Sagan mused, we are stardust: from this dust we came and to dust we shall return

Origin of the Universe

2009-03-10T06:26:00.004-05:00

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.

Being All Aglow

2009-03-07T11:38:00.003-06:00

Ahhh! But the sky IS literally aglow with this light. It is called the cosmic microwave backround, the CMB.

This is nonsense. The CMB follows a particular distribution of frequencies that is unlike that which would be expected from intergalactic plasma. The CMB follows a distribution law similar to that of a "holraum", a black body, an emitter that is presently a shade over 3 degrees kelvin in absolute temperature. Its emission maximum is in the microwave region. The envelope of a plasma emission would be of a completely different shape with a maximum in the visible range.

My Fair Laddie

2009-03-07T10:43:00.007-06:00

Zachsdad has got it right in http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/32309/410146.aspx#410146 . Evidence in favor of the hot big bang is extremely cogent, consistent, integrated, unified and relevant. It does not depend on ad hoc interjections for it is truly a well developed theory supported by numerous seperate lines of argument, not just a few.

Detractors have to knock out all the legs supporting the HBB while remaining self-consistent and avoiding self-contradiction. This cannot be done. There are always some questions. But to build a competing "theory" solely on discrepancies that stem from the incomplete nature of our observations and the limited number of man-hours that can be devoted to this endeavor is lame. We cannot have answered every question because we just have not got enough time and manpower.

But, just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. Just you wait!

I have to say that evangelists for particular positions seem a bit out of place here. Personally, I don't like the HBB theory because it requires too much suspension of disbelief, like a bad science fiction movie. It is truly "far out".

But arguments against it, like plasma interference, for instance, are even harder to take. All these objections are easily dismissed.

Plasma interference that affects light in such a way as to produce a sort of red-shift is no exception. If there is enough intergalactic plasma to produce this effect, then it should be producing hydrogen and helium emission too. The required levels would be easily detectable and they would stretch from the visible way down into the microwave region because this emission would be red-shifted too. The sky would be literally aglow with this light. It is not detected because it is not there.

Stubbornly holding on to this sophistry is tantamount to the accusation that the vast majority of scientists are being ignorant, stupid, incompetent or worse when it is insisted that many fundamental discrepancies are going unnoticed or are being deliberately ignored. Said discrepancies are wholely imaginary and are simply being pulled out of thin air. Anyone can publish a paper on the Internet. It's what crackpots do. Why do we not focus on some of the implications of the HBB instead of belaboring it?

If Allan Guth's inflaton particle makes any sense and inflationary expansion really did occur, then the universe has a huge foundation in quantum physics. What does this imply?

Let's move on!

Hard Evidence for the Hot Big Bang

2009-03-06T03:47:00.002-06:00

The existence of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is solid evidence for the HBB and for the concept that the universe is expanding and has been expanding for 13.7 gigayears. This background radiation has exactly the right distribution of high and low intensities, its power spectrum, and this distribution matches that predicted for not only for the HBB and what is expected from the inflationary version of the HBB.

This is proven evidence. If you don't agree that this is evidence for the HBB, what is it evidence for? Sophistry and hand waving are not allowed.

Hubble expansion is measurable from relatively nearby galaxies as well as from very distant ones. If one takes the midpoints of the ranges of distances to galaxies that were used in these studies and uses this data to compute H naught as a function of these distances, one finds that the Hubble "constant" is not really constant.

These values for H naught follow a straight line relation reaching from about 370,000 years after time = 0 to near the present. The Hubble constant is decreasing with time in a linear regression. The universe's expansion is slowing down, not accelerating. H naught values determined from nearby galaxy recession are very unlikely to be affected by interferences like intergalactic plasma. But, they lend credence to the values that have been determined from very distant galaxies, supernovae and the CMB.

The power spectrum of the CMB will also be affected by the overall geometry of the universe. The spectrum matches what is predicted by a "flat" universe, that is, one which is neither spherical in polydimensional space nor hyperbolic. This means that there is no strange geometric distortions of our measurements because the geometry of the universe is Euclidean.

The upshot is that the measurements are accurate and they are not being misinterpreted. Except that the data regarding acceleration in the present era are being misinterpreted, I think, because astrophysicists got it exactly "backward". Being exactly backward, it works, sort of. But, then it runs into reality. So, I dispute the existence of dark energy.

Not only are there billions of rogue planets in our galaxy, billions of brown dwarfs and billions of rogue stars - they are like roaches - if you find a few, there must be a huge population of them somewhere. There are also "dark galaxies" consisting of uncondensed or unconsolidated clouds of hydrogen/helium, enough to make very large galaxies if only they had had more time to contract enough to form stars. These are another class of cosmic roaches.

The population of brown dwarfs has yet to be determined so they cannot be part of the inventory of matter and energy in the universe. Likewise rogue planets, rogue stars or dark galaxies.When these adjustments are made, the amount of dark matter that may still exist outside of these estimates will be amenable to a quantum treatment of the universe.

The amount of matter and energy that is sufficient to account for the "missing mass" in the universe in order to "flatten" it will derive from the universe's nature as a quantum particle, just as was suggested by Allan Guth when he postulated the "inflaton". If the universe began as a quantum particle or wave then it is still exists as such.

Quantum physics is statistical in nature and it is incorrect to apply statistical probabilities to individual cases like our poor universe. But, we can suppose that there are uncountable numbers of universes more or less like ours. So then, statistical probabilities may apply.

As a group, these universes may exist as quantum particles or wave forms. Quantum waves commonly interefere with themselves so that an interference wave exists for each of these universes. See Wheeler's work.

Call the initial waveform A. Its interference wave form is B. In order to completely describe this system one may suppose that the hybrid sums of these waveforms also exist: A + B and A - B. The hybrid A - B may be just the null state, but it is still a real state. Thus, A and B are antistates. One is matter, the other is antimatter.

This may be where all the antimatter in this statistical ensemble of universes has gone. It exists in separate parallel universes. All these states may be superposed, a common condition among quantum states. This way, gravity, being the only force that might "leak" out of our universe, can be shared between them all.

Here is the missing mass. All the universes in the ensemble will appear to have missing mass until all the states are considered. Since there is a statistical distribution of universes similar to our own, each doing about the same thing, there may be parallel versions of each galaxy superposed upon one another and seperated by some polydimensinal "distance" yet still superposed in 3-D space.

Each would be oriented somewhat differently however, so that the superposition displays gravitational properties consistent with Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).This is the theoretical tweak of MOND that makes it consistent with relativity, or at least, not contrary to it.

Just who and what qualifies some people to substitute their own wisdom for the judgement of most other scientists? I suppose I could look up each of their profiles somewhere, but that would not really give me the information that I need. What, specifically, annoints them as putative popes of cosmology? Why do they think that they can condemn the work of others, directly or indirectly, while mouthing platitudes like "It's just my opinion."? They do not have open minds, this is clear.

They are evangelists for a particular point of view, not scientists. One can visit their prosylitizing websites.

This is not the place for personal attacks. But, they are attacking the good will and good faith of almost all other scientists who acknowledge the HBB as being the current "standard model" of cosmogony. In effect, they are accusing them of being stupid, incompetent or worse. So, I feel that it is good, right and just for me to stand up in defense of my colleagues right now.

By the way, I made a mistake earlier when I stated that galactic cluster evolution has been observed to be speeding up with time, implying that the universe's expansion rate is accelerating. The development rate of galactic clusters is actually decreasing with time, meaning that, if anything, the expansion rate is decelerating, just as was deduced years ago when the Hubble constant was first elaborated.

That the rate of evolution of galactic clusters may be slowing down is intuitively understandable if the universe as a whole is expanding at a slower and slower rate. It is hard to imagine a force that would speed up the overall evolution of the whole universe while retarding the development of clusters. In fact, it is contradictory. So, the fact of a slowdown in galactic evolution is evidence for a decelerating universe.

This is a new result and it has not yet had a chance to be digested by advocates of acceleration and Dark Energy. No doubt they will invent another ad hoc excuse.

There is no Dark Energy and none is needed. See above.

Model for the Inflationary Growth of the Universe

2009-01-30T00:12:00.006-06:00

PHENOMENOLOGICAL EQUATION
FOR THE EXPONENTIAL CONTRACTION
OR EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE

I do not believe that anyone has ever published an intuitive equation that purports to graphically describe, extensively (not intensively), the expansion of the universe according to the current standard model from near the beginning of time to the present and beyond. By means of a system of Edisonian trial and error guided by theory, boundary conditions and empirical evidence, I have produced such an equation. I consider it to be semi-theoretical but with strong empirical input from observation of the phenomenon. Eventually, I hope, It will be derived from first principles.

I started with Allan Guth’s concept of initial exponential inflationary expansion followed by Hubble’s idea of more moderate expansion beyond this preparatory process. By varying parameters, deceleration, constant expansion or acceleration in the modern era can be reproduced as well as initial exponential inflationary expansion. Guthian inflation, according to these equations, has a few twists, as we shall see.

I use Einstein’s natural units because no other basis will allow exponentials of the type that I employ to work. Therefore, the current "radius" or radius of the light horizon of the universe, the speed of light and the current age of the universe are all set equal to 1. Equation 3 is an idealized representation of Guth’s exponential inflation. It depends on the "relativistic" time form given in equation 1 which contains the parameter e.

To force the equation to describe deceleration in the present era, a value above about e=100 should be chosen. To produce an equation that describes acceleration in the present era, a value of rather lower than e=100 should be chosen. The values of A and B are chosen to make the equation conform to empirical boundary conditions, including the fact that the exponential expansion curve should always pass through the points (0,0) and (1,1).

In other words, once the boundary conditions are satisfied, e controls only the curvature.

See the next post for two tables of the equations I used with their variables and parameters. Sorry, the equations are written in single line format, that is, using nested parentheses, (() ), ^ for exponentiation, etc.

The Model - Inflationary Expansion of the Universe, Tables of Equations and Variables

2009-01-30T00:04:00.005-06:00

The Deceleration Scenario

2009-01-29T23:34:00.008-06:00

THE CASE OF EXPONENTIAL DECELERATION

In this post, I prepare to present a figure in the next post entitled "radius 1d" wherein the green trace depicts exponential deceleration (equation 3), the red trace depicts the first derivative of this curve (equation 4) and the greenish yellow curve depicts the Hubble parameter curve (equation 6). The relativistic time form is also shown (equation 1), as is the second derivative (equation 5).

Linear expansion is also shown, describing expansion of the universe if it had occurred at the speed of light (equation 2). This is included as a reference, as is the black linear regression "Hubble Data Line" (equation 7) that follows the path set by the best empirical values for the Hubble constant that have been determined. See Tony Smith's homepage under the keyword "cosconsensus" for these values.

Equation 7 has been determined from empirical values for the Hubble constant converted to natural units using the average value for the range of distances that were used in each determination and transformed into distances from the origin instead of distances from Earth.

Note that this set of curves depict deceleration in the present era, the Hubble parameter trace intersects the vertical time=1 line at the same point as the empirical linear regression Hubble constant line, as it should. It also intersects the t=1 line at the same point as does the first derivative curve to give a multiple intersect. This suggests to me that these equations with this particular selection of parameter values may correctly describe what is actually happening in the universe today.

There are several other points where there are multiple intersections on the time=1 or radius=1 line. We must use natural units to represent the traces of these equations and when we do so, the multiple intersections represent points where a mere transformation of coordinates can switch us between curves. Therefore, I believe that these points represent invariances and it is can be seen that they would be graphically arrayed symmetrically if they were plotted on a different grid, say, with log-log scales. And, they are mathematically symmetrical.

So, according to Noether’s theorem, they define one or another of the truly fundamental physical constants and conservation laws. Furthermore, besides mathematical symmetry, there are more such confluences of intersecting curves in this depiction than there are in the one displaying acceleration (see below). Physicists generally prefer the alternative that shows the highest symmetry, mathematical and graphical. Mathematical versus graphical representation denotes one of the axes or types of symmetry, after all.

2009-01-29T23:30:00.002-06:00

"radius_1" Depiction, Acceleration Scenario, multiple plots

2009-01-29T23:18:00.005-06:00

RADIUS_1 DEPICTION

The next figure in the following post describes the case wherein the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate in the present era. Note that the Hubble parameter curve does not intersect t=1 at a reasonable point and that there are few points of multiple intersection.

By the way, the equations for the derivative curves were found by using the Mathematica website that features a free utility that finds derivatives. Of course, the first derivative represents the speed of expansion and the second derivative stands for the acceleration or deceleration.

Graphically, this scenario displays less symmetry and does not much illustrate Noether's theorem. Remember, these equations are semi-theoretical as well as based on phenomenology. So, being theoretical in part, they should be potentially able to respect Noether's theorem.

"radius_1c", Radius vs Time, Acceleration Scenario

2009-01-29T22:54:00.007-06:00

"Radius 1c", Depiction of the Derivative of Exponential Deceleration

2009-01-29T21:37:00.007-06:00

DEPICTION OF THE DERIVATIVE OF EXPONENTIAL DECELERATION

In the next post, I give the last figure. There, the plot represents the result of taking the first derivative of the exponential expansion equation that shows deceleration in the modern epoch. Looking at a short interval of time very near the beginning, we see that the speed of expansion runs through a minimum.

This may be important because these exponential curves show no induction period which is essential to serve their purpose of providing an early time for equilibration of the universe resulting in the eventual thermal homogeneity that we see now. The speed of expansion temporarily drops far below the speed of light, almost to zero, to give a minimum at a very early time. The case wherein the expansion accelerates in the modern era does not display this minimum. So, this is another reason to favor the deceleration scenario if one requires a time in the early history of the universe when equilibration could occur.

I wonder why the equilibration requirement is present in the first place. The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a sudden expansion of space-time. There was not necessarily any turbulence to act as a source of inhomogeneity that would need to be smoothed out. Indeed, if the universe did in fact originate in a singularity, expansion from a single point should automatically result in a universe that is homogeneous and isotropic, satisfying the cosmological principle. To suppose otherwise requires a mechanism to produce turbulent expansion and none is forthcoming.

So, in order to favor the deceleration scenario, one would need to explain the supernova 1a results that indicate that the universe may be undergoing accelerating expansion in the present epoch. I would say that perhaps these results are a sort of optical illusion stemming from the possibility that when the universe is observed at such early times, it is observed as a more and more purely relativistic object. The tiny residual positive curvature of space-time may become sufficient to produce a kind of distortion of our measurements. Our gross difference in perspective results in what naively looks as if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In other words, acceleration is an artifact.

The apparent development of galaxy clusters being slower in the very early universe than they are in the more recent epoch can be explained in similar fashion in that this is an artifact; this time, of the universe being very young. Youth, per se, must have some consequence, after all.

All plots herein were produced using the mathematical analysis program TK Solver Plus 5.0 by UTS.

Figure 2, Radius vs Time, radius_1c

2009-01-29T21:20:00.011-06:00

New Empirical Numeric Model of the Evolution of the Universe

2008-12-20T20:08:00.005-06:00

Phenomenological Mathematical Model of the Universe

I think that once galaxies have begun to form, the origin of the universe was quite done and its fate was sealed. Undoubtedly, there will be more progress in the physicodynamics of galaxy formation. Once discrete large scale structures begin to form in the universe, the assumption of the cosmological principle that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic begins to break down. But, before this time, it was probably perfectly appropriate.

I have never seen a mathematical model of the "origin" of the universe and its evolution, growth and development carried through to the present era and beyond. Such a model has been inferred from the data, but I don't think it has been explicitly expressed in analytic mathematical terms. Using Guth's inflationary scenario, specifically his premise of an exponential burst of growth near the very beginning, I have developed a mathematical model that is capable of depicting the evolution of the universe from 10 ^ -60 sec to 30 gigayears and beyond.

By using various choices for parameter values, it is possible with this model to represent a universe that putatively follows a trajectory true to empirical data and transitions to a new era of "neo-inflation" or dominance by dark energy. Or, it can move toward a period of deflation toward collapse in the modern epoch. Or else, it may evolve toward "flat" expansion at a constant rate. Adjustable parameters make it possible for my model to mimic any empirically determined behavior with but very few input values. The plots that I can produce may have significance beyond their graphic utility for visualization.

I use Einstein's natural units to represent the "radius" or radius of curvature of the universe, time and the speed of light. This is the only way that Guth-like equations make any sense and are definable. A plot of these equations, their 1st and 2nd derivatives, H and the expansion of the universe if it had expanded at the speed of light, seems to show a sort of symmetry.

The existence and positions of multiple intersection points where these curves cross in interesting ways portrays an array that might be interpreted as a representation of several kinds of invariance. I am tempted to interpret this array of intersections as a highly symmetric matrix of invariances, also invariant and symmetric in their superimposable, rotational and other transforms of coordinate systems, bespeaking various fundamental constants according to Noether's Theorem.

Revealed here is an interesting problem. I refer to my equations as empirical or phenomenological models that are based fundamentally on theory so that it should be possible to extrapolate successfully into the past and future alike. Using parameters that give a result consistent with the onset of a new epoch of inflation in "recent" times, this form of the model does not provide an early time when the nascent universe could have equilibrated.

Essentially, Guth's idea fixed the major criticisms of the Big Bang Theory by postulating that equilibration occurred during the exponential induction period when the universe was very small and that the transition to exponential growth then locked in the homogeneity that had been achieved. But, with the choice of parametric values giving the required result of that new inflation attributed to dark energy, there is no such induction period.

And, because there are fewer multiple intersection points displayed by this type of plot, it displays less of the above described symmetry than a plot of a type that displays developmental deceleration. Plots showing deceleration show higher "symmetry" and they provide a type of induction period in the traces of their curves. Mathematical physicists prefer theories that possess more of this kind of symmetry.

I want to combine the two types of equations by merely adding them together with variable weighting factors as is done with hybrid solutions to a quantum wave equation. The weights might themselves follow a simple equation that emphasizes the deceleration scenario in the first few moments of the universe's existence and the acceleration scenario later in its evolutionary trajectory. Then, the early induction period would be preserved while the transition to new inflation would be allowed. I want to see if my special symmetry is preserved and see what my being able to do this might imply. I will expand upon this in a future post that will be entitled "The Quantum Universe".

Of course, if the universe really did originate with a singularity, no induction period would be required. Guth's inflation might not be needed after all. If the trajectories of all waves and particles originated at the same point, they would progress throughout the whole with at least some of the same "original" intensive properties, like temperature.

The Big Bang, the origin of the universe, was not an explosion. If space-time expanded from a single point, it is unnecessary to postulate any form of unevenness or turbulence that might give rise to inhomogeneities that would need to be suppressed or quenched. Precisely what cause could be cited that would result in an uneven expansion of space-time or a turbulent beginning with consequent temperature variations? Are not temperature variations simply assumed? Why? The failure of the explosion metaphor must have a consequence.

Gary Kent

Dark Energy Debunked Still More

2007-04-30T04:06:00.000-05:00

Re: Dark Energy Debunked

O.K. Suppose the expansion of the universe is accelerating against all previous hypotheses that it should be decelerating. How could it be?

Well, Dark Energy is one explanation. Dark Energy is supposed to act, physically and mathematically, like negative pressure. It is as if the universe was immersed in a big vacuum, except that it is already a vacuum. But, it may be what is called a "false vacuum" with many more quantum entities seething just below the level of detectability (without huge accelerators probing muon decay, that is).

The true vacuum would act on our false vacuum universe the same way that a vacuum would act on a balloon, and, as the membrane got thinner, it would weaken. This is because the tension or overall force had surpassed the elastic limit and the expansion rate of the balloon would therefore accelerate. The tension seems to have surpassed the elastic limit of our universe about 9 billion years ago, it is said.

But this is just analogy. It is meaningless if it does not lead to a testable result or deduction. We cannot apply a force to the universe as a whole nor to spacetime. We cannot stretch spacetime in an experimental apparatus.

Perhaps spacetime stretches naturally as a result of the expansion that has already gone before. Then, as the receding galaxies recede faster from one another depending on their distance, it constitutes increased stretching of spacetime. As a matter of fact, the relativistic redshift is said to result from a "stretching" of spacetime.

But, I am only restating my analogy in different words (dodging or begging the question). This is not experimental or observational proof.

We need to put spactime in a sort of tensiometer to stretch it until it deforms more rapidly or else breaks. We need to find a way to rip spacetime. And hope that we do not tear a hole in the universe that will swallow us up!

This is all unproductive speculation. It would be more productive to follow the lead that this Dark Energy conclusion, reached by reductio ad absurdum, has given us. Carrying an argument to its extreme this way, to the point where an absurd contradiction occurs, is a standard method of proving logical falsehood.

Dark Energy proves itself false.

Let's work on this!

Then the calculations that indicate that the theoretic prevalence of heavier nuclei in the early universe are wrong, and the premises leading to this conclusion of too few heavy nuclei, need to be revised. Furthermore, the premises behind the interpretations of observations of too little "grey dust" that is made of such heavy nuclei (Be, B, C, N and O with traces of Mg, Al and Si) must also be wrong. There is a goldmine of research opportunity here!

Yes, scientists have made an 180 on the deceleration/acceleration trajectory of their thinking. And, yes, there could indeed be 1,000 million big bangs and other even weirder local parcels in a truly infinite universe. So, what is so special about it, even if our packet of the universe's expansion rate is accelerating. Who gives a rat's ass?

Well, we do, because we are here. And we do indeed live in a universe that just happens to have physical constants that support its existence and the existence of intelligent life. Presuming that we are indeed intelligent, that is. So, it matters to us because such conundrums fascinate. The irony is irresistible.

Another explanation of accelerating expansion is that spacetime is exploding. The negative pressure that shows up in relativistical equations is itself only relative. From the outside, looking in - even with an explosion - the pressure is negative. Just as energy is negative if it is released from the inside to the outside. The result is the same as before.

Except it is more like the original "phase change" that the "false vacuum" underwent at the time of the Big Bang. When water begins to boil, the expanding bubble drinks in more vapor at an accelerating rate because its surface area is increasing so rapidly that it ensnares more and more liquid, allowing it to turn into vapor. The false vacuum returns to its ground state, the true vacuum state, releasing energy that goes to accelerate the expansion rate. The bubble of spacetime that is our universe increases in size at an exponentially increasing rate, like a bubble of steam that grows larger so fast that it almost explodes out of the tea kettle.

These two scenarios are called the "quintessence" hypothesis and the "cosmological constant" hypothesis, respectively. Not only do we have to prove Dark Energy exists, but we have to distinguish between these two alternatives!

It would be much simpler to suppose that the premises underlying theoretical calculations and observational interpretations about the disparity between luminosity distances and redshift distances to far off type 1a supernovae are wrong.

Another alternative would be that the universe is growing. Spacetime may be reproducing itself and it is doing so at the usual exponentially increasing rate typical of a population of living organisms. The spacetime population underwent an initial accelerating increase initially (the BB), slowed down when waste products (like neutrinos) accumulated and sped up again when the volume increased sufficiently (and neutrino density decreased enough) for a new growth spurt to begin. Perhaps the conclusion should be, from this if it is true, that the universe is alive!

Gary Kent

Dark Energy Debunked Some More

2007-04-30T03:37:00.000-05:00

Re: Dark Energy Debunked

There is always some emotional component in our effort to think. Humans are never perfectly logical. When we unconsciously perceive that a concept may be beyond comprehension, we cough it up, like a snake that has swallowed an oversize egg. And we recoil from it.

The visceral reaction against it is like a reflex that protects our emotional hearts from choking.This business about dark energy and dark matter involves concepts of immense numbers, "curved" space and such long periods of time that we cannot fully comprehend them.

It is what the author meant when he complained of people's incurable "innumeracy". We do not and can not fully acknowledge how ignorant we are of the ultimate implications of the enormously large or incredibly small aspects of reality. It makes me uncomfortable too.

But, at the same time, I experience a fascinating addiction to it! This is why I bother with this blog in the first place.

It is said that even if all the dark matter in the universe is accounted for, there would still not be enough matter and/or energy in the universe to "close" it. I guess that astrophysicists can apply statistical analysis to the pattern found in the cosmic microwave background to extract a mathematical "power law" that describes the distribution of high and low intensity areas in the sky. That power law is consistent with the pattern's being projected onto the sky from a flat source, I think.

This means that space is flat to within a very small percentage. So, the universe is, in fact, closed or at least it is poised delicately on the borderline between open, or ever expanding, and completely closed, eventually to contract.

But very distant type 1a supernovae SEEM to be more distant, by luminosity measurements, than they SEEM to be by redshift measurements. So, the universe should be older by luminosity than it is by redshift.

If one extrapolates redshift versus distance or time back toward zero, one obtains an intersection with the ordinate axis that is short of the origin (as determined by luminosity). The only way that this could occur is if the radial velocity of expansion line is curved upward, is concave rather than convex. This is the same as saying the universe expansion rate is accelerating.

But, then it is not closed or poised on the borderline. If it is poised, it would show a leveling off, an asymptotic approach to a plateau. So CMB data show a picture that is at odds with the supernova data.

It is not all consistent, in other words. And the rush to a conclusion is surely premature.

There is much evidence in support of the inflationary model of the evolution of the universe. Alan Guth's inflation says that the universe should have a flat curvature to within an exceedingly small percentage. But, again, an accelerating universe is not flat.

Cosmologists seem to want to have it both ways and the alternatives are mutually contradictory. And, they insist on referring to a Hubble CONSTANT. If the universe is doing anything but expanding at a constant rate, if it is slowing down or speeding up, we have a Hubble parameter, not a constant. And then one cannot use linear regression analysis to determine H naught.

That the the latter point is missed may be due to sloppy journalism. The way these issues are discussed in the popular press is confusing. When journalists do not know that an overturned tanker of liquid nitrogen cannot explode like liquid hydrogen or promote an exposion like liquid oxygen, we cannot trust their scientific judgement.

Your visceral reaction against all of this is just a reaction to reality. It is all really very disgusting! Let us continue to watch the soap opera. Maybe there will be some kind of conclusion after all.

Gary Kent

Inflationary Quantum Hot Big Bang

2007-04-08T21:33:00.000-05:00

So many people believe the Hot Big Bang hypothesis (HBB) because there is an overwhelming amount of incontestable evidence in its favor. There will be Nobel Prizes for some investigators who were most responsible for its discovery and proof.

Those who disbelieve and diss the work that has already lead to its acceptance by the vast majority of physical scientists continually demonstrate, they truly prove well beyond any reasonable doubt, nothing more than their own ignorance!

There are at least three utterly independent lines of logic that support the Hot Big Bang hypothesis of cosmogenesis. The first is measurements of cosmic distances by redshifts, by relativistic redshifts, no less, by the way. The second is measurement of cosmological distances by means of luminosity.

If the speed of light is not constant, the only plausible objection to the redshift conclusion put forth so far, then the luminosity data acts to back the same argument. If luminosity somehow gets disqualified, the redshifts take up the burden. One has to debunk BOTH simultaneously to have a hope of knocking the HBB off its pedestal.

But wait! There is the data from at least three separate probes of the cosmic microwave background. This huge data set also suppports the HBB hypothesis. Furthermore, the very existence of the cosmic microwave background is near perfect proof of the HBB hypothesis all by itself!

There is not the chance of a snow storm in Hades to cross-off all three lines of reasoning without self-contradiction.

Specially designed spectrometers are used to measure redshifts. They may use electronics or photographic film and involve the use of prisms or diffraction gratings. They depend on measurements of wavelength.

But, on the other hand, light intensity for photometric luminosity measurements can be done with a simple photocell or it may use photographic film or light sensitive transistor sensors. The latter are arrays of a particular kind of light sensitive Charge Coupled transistor logic gate assembled as a single Device on a small silicon crystal wafer or "chip" - CCDs. The relative brightness of identifiably defined bright stars or galaxies is used to calibrate the method. It is completely independent of wavelength.

These three approaches each have interferences and weaknesses that have to be accounted for. But, they result in measurements that have been subjected to mathematical, rigorous statistical error analysis which tells the investigator how good her data is and how reliable her conclusions from it may be. This depends on an accurate assessment of where there may be certain kinds of error or inaccuracy in the data. Taken one step at a time, however, this is not so very difficult to do.

In the physical sciences, measurements that are within 95% confidence limits are the norm. This means that all subsequent measurements done in the same way will be likely to give results that deviate very far from the average only 5% of the time. Confidence limits of 98% are common.

But outright interferences are another matter. These much degrade the reliability of many astrophysical measurements. But, investigators are certain that they have identified all potential killer interferences. It would be the near impossible task of detractors to somehow reinstate them for all three lines of argument. This too must be done without self-contradiction.

But, of course, they do not do this. Instead, they rely on specious and hairbrained substitute hypotheses of their own. They prove nothing at all except the naysayers' total ignorance of the true nature and proper practical application of the scientific method.

Either kind of distance measurement results in descriptions of both nearby and very distant galaxies as receding from one another at a rather constant rate. Edwin Hubble was the first to reason that one may extrapolate from this apparently constant recession rate, called H naught or H subscript zero, to earlier times when the galaxies must have been much closer together.

But, Fred Hoyle hypothesized that this could be happening in a universe that constantly renews itself by the steady formation of new stars and galaxies through quantum fluctuations that produce new hydrogen atoms. This is called the Steady State Hypothesis (SSH).

The only real alternative, so far, to the SSH, is the HBB. This hypothesizes that by extrapolating backward in time far enough, the galaxies would have had to spring from an apparently infinitely dense, infinitely hot, single point, a singularity. We cannot comprehend what this means so, philosophically it is undesirable.

The sudden appearance of the universe as a single, ultradense point of some kind of quantum hybrid between matter and light (which would have had to be more like light) resulted in what is the misnomer of the "Hot Big Bang". This hypothetical HBB is NOT an explosion. It is the appearance of a bubble of matter/energy in a pure vacuum of spacetime somewhat similar to the phase change that occurs when water boils to form bubbles of steam.

It is quite well established that a "pure" vacuum is anything but empty. Quantum mechanics is the best, most fully validated principle or set of principles in all of science. Experiments are going on all the time in hundreds of laboratories all around the world that have yet to find any discrepancy. We are constantly learning new things about it, however.

Because of the spectacular success of quantum mechanics, it is quite plausible that the universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation in an otherwise empty vacuum of spacetime. This notion has further implications too. For instance, formation of a long lived virtual particle means production by a high energy state vacuum called a "false vacuum". Virtual particles are ordinarily produced in particle/antiparticle pairs that self-annihilate almost immediately. The main way that virtual particles produce real particles that last a substantially long time is by means of their location very very near the event horizon of a black hole. This implies that the observable universe may be part of a much larger polydimensional surface of an even larger black hole that is undergoing expansion.

The potential observation of some sort of direct evidence for this could help solve the problem of missing mass without invoking dark energy. The data seem to imply that the total mass inventory of the full universe may be many times the experimentally verified mass inventory for the observable universe.

By the way, Fred Hoyle's SSH has been shown to be false. For one thing, the power law or energy distribution that the CMB would have to follow would be all wrong.

There is a much higher probability that a "particle" or matter/energy bubble will appear by quantum fluctuation in a very very high energy state than at a lower one by mere statistical chance. So, it is plausible that the universe began in such an extremely energetic condition that it enclosed the stupendous quantity of matter/energy that we see today.

Quantum particles are often characterizable as single points whose exact location cannot be well known. Still, they are describable as points. Statistically, this is not a problem. But, we have only one universe to study. It is mathematically incorrect to apply probabilistic principles to individual events. So, we have a subtle philosophical problem here.

Nonetheless, I think that the HBB has a lot going for it and Alan Guth has solved the most serious objections to the idea with his inflationary universe scenario. Philosophically, the inflationary HBB is now the most tenable scenario of cosmogenesis.

The universe did not have to arise from an infinitely dense and energetic origin, only from an exceedingly high and intense one. There is no objection from a religious perspective either.

Cosmogony and cosmogenesis cannot be discussed adequately and our brothers' question cannot be answered fully unless we include a word about philosophy and the religious perspective on this question. Only an intolerant atheist would disagree.

This thread cannot and should not be restricted to atheists!

God said (it was written into the nature of spacetime) "Let there be light!". And there was light. Or a light-like "stuff" that begat the whole rest of creation. It is written that God spoke. His Word was His Son and vice versa, as St. John declared. We share in the nature of the Son of God, therefore in the nature of God Himself.

We are Responsible, as God is Responsible for the existence of spacetime and for the existence of existence itself. Some philosophical concepts can indeed be referred to themselves, after all.

This is the real metaphorical significance of Jesus' whole message! You can indeed believe in theistic evolution of both life and the universe itself. Christians have nothing to fear from modern science as long as they keep an open mind.

http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/

http://neochristianity.blogspot.com/

http://hometown.aol.com/nuchristianrabbi/

http://www.luckyboyproductions.org/ Available May, 2007.

I hope that it may be judged that this comment has enough "redeeming social and intellectual importance" that these citations to my websites may be forgiven. They are not advertisements. I do not sell anything.

Gary Kent

The Skeptical Cosmologist

2007-03-25T17:04:00.000-05:00

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

A few prominent astrophysicists and cosmologists have hijacked the process of the scientific method by their skillful use of the media. Technologically illiterate journalists are their accomplices. There is no excuse for the current mad rush to a messy consensus and the cockeyed conclusion that some weird stuff they call dark energy makes up the bulk of the universe. Dark energy is truly miraculous stuff and qualifies as a supernatural explanation of deep space observations!

Bunk!

Those with the ability must recalculate the main assumption that underlies the dark energy conclusion. This conclusion is based on the interpretation of the real distances to Type 1A supernovae. They are interpreted to be farther away than their redshifts would indicate. An estimate of the most serious interference to this interpretation, that there may be much more dust in the early universe than was thought, must be in error.

The currently calculated assumption is that there is not enough extra dust to cause the effect. The effect itself is a result of an interpretation that may itself also be wrong. This apparent "phenomenon" is that since these exceedingly distant supernovae are farther away than the distances indicated by their redshifts, then the universe must have begun expanding at an accelerating rate in recent epochs. The only thing that some prominent astrophysicists can think of that might explain this is this unscientific postulate of dark energy. All subsequent observational interpretations are biased to favor the assumption of dark energy to begin with, so it is not surprising that they tend to prove it.

There has been no effort to go back and recalculate the relative prevalence of "metals" in the earliest phases of the universe's development. If mathematical assumptions are changed sufficiently, the concentration of heavy nuclei could easily rise to the point that more dust formed than was thought. Presto! There is much more dust present to dim the images and the supernovae in question are as close by as their redshifts indicate.

Why there is not more skepticism about the contradiction between luminosity distances and redshift distances in the first place completely escapes me!

These so-called scientists are so gullible that I think they should not be allowed to refer to themselves as having a Ph.D. They have not done their professional homework. They neglect easy solutions in favor of a complex and difficult ad hoc theorem that raises more questions than it solves!

In a future post I will present my most favored model for the inflationary expansion of the universe. It shows how the data should properly be interpreted.

There is no dark energy.