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.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
"radius_1" Depiction, Acceleration Scenario, multiple plots
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", Depiction of the Derivative of Exponential Deceleration
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.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
New Empirical Numeric Model of the Evolution of the Universe
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
Monday, April 30, 2007
Dark Energy Debunked Still More
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
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
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
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
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Inflationary Quantum Hot Big Bang
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
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
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Skeptical Cosmologist
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
