|
|
In a popular book that details the scientific quest for the secrets
of the Universe, Dennis Overbye, science writer for the New York
Times, makes it clear that the search has failed. Overbye readily
admits “in a way this book is about failure.” One reads in the book
“about what it’s like to be on the cosmological quest ... [with] the
priests and the mythmakers of our technological age” and, upon
finishing the last chapter, one is disappointed to find that the
secret of the Universe is missing. [Overbye, D. 1991 & 1999.
Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos (1999 ed.; Little, Brown and
Company) p3, and back cover]
Standard cosmology has failed, utterly and completely, in revealing
the true reality of the Universe --the reality of its fundamental
structure and fundamental processes.
Along the journey of mankind’s quest for the secrets of the
Universe the participants stumbled, misread the clues, and headed down
the wrong road. Long ago in the year 1887, cosmologists found
themselves at a fork in the road. In that historic year, these
pioneering scientists misinterpreted a critically important physics
experiment. A smaller than expected speed for the Earth’s motion
through aether-space was duly found and recorded; but rather than
suspect some flaw in the instrument’s calibration, the final
conclusion of this famous experiment was that the aether motion had
not been detected. This conclusion, which became known as the
Michelson-Morley “null result”, sent fundamental physics and
mainstream cosmology down a tortuous path.
That error ---invalid conclusion, wrong road--- occurred in the 19th
century. In the 20th century that same wrong road
eventually led a major branch of science into the Big Bang blunder
which is more politely called standard cosmology. Today in the
21st century the space sciences are still traveling along
this same path in the same wrong direction.
Standard cosmology is in the midst of a crisis. What follows should
leave no doubt.
One of the world’s most famous astronomers (and
unquestionably the world’s expert on peculiar galaxies), Halton Arp,
has collected the evidence over many years and ---personally as well
as professionally--- maintains that extragalactic redshifts are
not caused by an expanding universe. In taking such a
contrarian stand, this distinguished Professor is denying the very
foundation of all big bang (BB) models! If the universe does not
expand then obviously it does not constitute any sort of big
explosion. No big bang! [Halton Arp. 1998. Seeing Red: Redshifts,
Cosmology and Academic Science]
Halton Arp recognizes the crisis in his field, knows it is on the
wrong path, and struggles, in his words, “to get the mainstream of
astronomy back on track.”
|
|
I believe the observational
evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality
been toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new
observations, the connections between objects and the new insights
into the workings of the universe ---all the primary obligations
of academic science, which has generally tried to suppress or
ignore such dissident information.
--Halton Arp [1998. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and
Academic Science, Preface] |
|
One famous physicist/cosmologist, Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995) ---a
Nobel Laureate (plasma physics 1970) no less--- came to recognize and
boldly reject the implausible. He was not about to waste time on a
road going nowhere. And neither was he going to waste words. To him it
was patently evident that the big bang never happened !
|
|
There is no rational reason to
doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite
time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came
into being either four thousand years ago or twenty billion years
ago. --Hannes Alfvén [as
in The Big Bang Never Happened, Discover, June 1988] |
|
What did happen is that those early pioneers, confronted
with convincing evidence that cosmic space expands and presented with
sound theory that space must expand, wisely concluded that space
indeed expands. But then some of those pioneers got carried away; they
decided that the entire Universe must be expanding!
The astronomers had their redshift measurements of apparently
receding galaxies and the relativist theorists had their mathematical
magic ... and the rest is history. The Big Bang happened as a result
of an overzealous utilization of history’s grandest unscientific
extrapolation.
Problem was, and still is, that the extrapolation won’t work. There
are serious problems with space-expansion extrapolation (think
cosmic-edge paradox) as well as with temporal extrapolation (think
beginning-of-universe paradox).
|
|
The problem with Big Bang
theorists, Alfvén argues, is that they try to extrapolate the
origin of the universe from mathematical theories rather than from
laboratory phenomena ...
--Eric J. Lerner [The Big Bang
Never Happened, Discover, June 1988] |
|
Now for some of the details of the treacherous road of obstacles
and pitfalls that impede the advancement of space science in general
and cosmology in particular. The obstacles are the mysteries and
unanswered questions that have led to a state of crisis. For the most
part they are the direct consequences of the invalid BB cosmology.
Most are simply unresolvable within any generic BB theory. The
following compilation is not in any particular order, except that it
begins with the Big Bang’s primordial speck-of-almost-nothing and
culminates with the devastating Crisis of 1998.
The Big Bang universe is said to have originated as an
infinitely small primordial atom of infinite matter
density. But, according to cosmologist Edward R. Harrison, “What
happens at infinite density is not known, and for physical reasons it
is probable that a singular state of this nature is unattainable.”
[1981. Cosmology, the Science of the Universe, p229] Yet this
atom is said to transform itself into the BB universe.
Now is there anyone who would deny that a speck of almost nothing
that contains almost everything is a paradox? The mystery of
the primordial atom is so unfathomable that it actually represents a
paradox! A contradiction!
In 1939 Einstein published a paper in which he attempted to show
that matter could not be so condensed that the Schwarzschild radius
would fall outside the gravitating body and thus become a reality.
[Peter Bergmann. 1992. The Riddle of Gravitation, p131] This
simply means that Einstein opposed the idea of stars being compressed
into a singularity.
The equally eminent J. Robert Oppenheimer argued that when
sufficient mass becomes concentrated it will collapse into its
Schwarzschild radius, and it will do so because matter losses its
stability to resist its own self gravitation. [Ibidem, p131] But what
is the nature of this collapse?
The question here is not about the existence of black holes. Black
holes do exist. The question is whether or not they
exist as infinitely-dense singularities.
Halton Arp, over the years, has “collected enough so-called
anomalous redshifts to have overthrown conventional big bang
cosmology.” [Dennis Overbye. 1991 & 1999. Lonely Hearts of
the Cosmos, p390]
Astronomers have found many galaxy pairs and galaxy groups in which
the members are evidently close to each other —yes, even interacting—
yet have redshifts that are radically at odds! Their redshifts don’t
make sense: If two galaxies are roughly in the same place then their
measured redshifts should agree with each other (since redshift is
supposed to be a measure of their distance, although it may include a
relatively minor component due to local motion). The observational
fact that they don’t is considered anomalous. The mystery is in the
cause, and also why some of the anomalies are so extreme.
The cosmic edge riddle is probably the oldest riddle in
cosmology. In simple terms: Any finite universe has a cosmic edge. How
does one deal with that edge? In its ancient form the question was
graphically posed by the Pythagorean soldier-philosopher Archytas of
the 5th century B.C.; what happens to a spear when it is
hurled across the outer boundary of such a universe? [Harrison, E.
R. 1981. Cosmology, the Science of the Universe, p104]
As for the BB universe, the cosmic riddle is
expressed this way:
If the Big Bang
universe is expanding, what in the world (or whatever) is it expanding
into? Furthermore, if it is expanding into a nothingness-void (or
whatever), why isn’t that considered part of our universe?
The curvature of space is a mathematical concept; meaning that
curvature of space is expressed by a formula. Curvature is a
concept that wonderfully describes what gravity does to things like
stars, objects, and light beams. Unfortunately no one seems to know
what this curvature actually is. Yes, of course, we all know
that mass curves space; but what in the name of reality does that
mean?
What is it that matter does to surrounding space? ... Flash
geometric equations? ... Signal with tensor matrices?
And so, BB proponents have a mystery. A mystery that extends into
the spatial curvature of the entire BB universe. Hence, one finds in
research papers and popular articles, numerous references to the
space curvature problem. For many years the question used
to be, ‘Is the curvature of the universe positive (closed), negative
(open), or flat?’ Sounds like a simple enough question to solve —given
our modern observational sophistication. Anyway, a solution was found,
but amazingly the mystery has deepened. The two part question now
being asked is, ‘Why is the universe negatively curved?! —and
yet at the same time appear so flat?!’
It is best to reserve judgment until better
data is obtained.
--Professor Edward Wright (1998) on the determination of spatial
curvature
While we wait for a resolution or more likely
a “saving of appearances” from the BB experts, may I humbly suggest a
better model?
Continuing along the BB, expanding universe, mystery tour ...
Mainstream cosmology tries to avoid this pothole. The topic is
rather embarrassing. The truth of the matter is that both the open
and the flat BB universes (these are the versions that have
the universe expanding forever) are based on a paradox —actually a
double paradox. And what is so embarrassing is that it is the worst
kind of paradox one could have in any theory —thermodynamic law
violation.
One must understand the basic fact that heat energy is
disordered energy and is therefore the highest entropy
form of energy. And we all know that at the primordial big-bang-moment
things were hot —really, really hot! In theory, the temperature was at
its maximum. Naturally we should be able to assert that entropy was
also highest at that moment at the birth of the BB universe. Now if
entropy is maximum in the early big bang, then how can entropy
increase as it is supposed to during the subsequent evolution of the
universe? Entropy is already at maximum! How can it increase further?
And yet thermodynamic law says it must increase! ... A paradox.
|
|
Recall that the primordial fireball
was a thermal
state—a hot gas in expanding thermal equilibrium. Recall, also,
that the term ‘thermal equilibrium’ refers to a state of
maximum
entropy. However, the second law demands that in its initial
state, the entropy of [the BB] universe was at some sort of
minimum,
not a maximum!
What has gone wrong?
—Roger Penrose [1990. The Emperor’s New Mind, p328] |
|
What is more, the open/flat universe (this includes the currently
popular accelerating version), by definition, expands forever. As it
expands its regional average temperature becomes colder and colder. In
time stars die, galaxies collapse, black holes evaporate. Left-over
radiation is relentlessly redshifted (a consequence of universal space
expansion). The temperature —the measure of the weakening radiation—
drops. The temperature in all regions of the universe approaches the
ultimate low of absolute zero. And in tandem, entropy approaches its
ultimate low value. By definition a system at absolute zero has zero
entropy. So the universe ends up having an ultimately low entropy when
it is supposed to end up (according to proven physical law) in a
maximum state of disorder (or entropy).
And we are left wondering: How can entropy decrease in this
supposedly natural and closed system (the BB expanding universe
system)? The second law is clear, entropy must only increase or remain
constant! Again, a paradox.
For the homogeneity riddle let me simply quote the man who
wrote the world-class textbook on cosmology:
|
|
Widely separated regions, billions
of light years apart, are in similar states and are dynamically
synchronized. We would feel more comfortable with this amazing
state of homogeneity if we could explain why it exists.
—E.R. Harrison [Cosmology, the Science of the Universe,
p314] |
|
It has also been called the uniformity paradox. In
the words of another expert: A major paradox in cosmology is the
near uniformity of the universe. [Bucher,
Martin A. & Spergel, David N. Inflation in a Low-Density Universe
Scientific American Jan 1999 p69] Why does the distant past
look practically the same as the near-and-present?! Looking 10 billion
years into the past looks very much the same as the present. That’s
not the way it is supposed to appear in an expanding universe!
Metaphorically speaking the challenge here is to explain how
something, say a building, can look almost the same before and after
it is ballisticly blown apart.
Originally the flatness problem was described as the “riddle of why
the universe is neither dramatically open nor closed, but appears to
be almost perfectly balanced between these states.” [Timothy Ferris.
1988. Coming of Age in the Milky Way, p398].
After the crisis of 1998 the problem became: Why is the balance
tipped in favor of an open universe doomed to expand
forever?
Notice how the course of BB cosmology is often a matter of
replacing one problem with another.
In addition to the flatness problem there is also an oldness
problem. Both are rooted in the criticality of the universe’s total
matter density. For the flatness problem, if the matter density ratio
deviates from the critical value, the universe will either collapse
(making it a closed universe) or expand (making it an open universe).
Now for the oldness problem, this same density ratio has an affect
on the BB universe’s life span. If the density is slightly above
criticality (by as little as 1 part in 1024 during the primordial
genesis) the universe would already have ended. While a lower density
leads to a universe without end. The question is, why should we be so
close to that magic critical density? Hence, the ‘oldness’ riddle. And
the combined flatness-oldness riddle is a two sided coin.
It seems that certain objects in the Universe have been found to
be older than the BB universe itself. A somewhat embarrassing
situation. Among the most ancient observable stars are those found in
globular star-clusters some of which are located near the Milky Way
galaxy. Estimates of their age, based on calculations of how fast
stars burn their nuclear fuel, have ranged from 10 to 20 billion years
(depending on the values of the various parameters used). [Krauss,
Lawrence M. Cosmological Antigravity, Scientific American Jan
1999 p56] Such objects appear to be older than the BB universe.
Science News, March 30, 2002, reported the discovery of the most
distant galaxy to date. The redshift measured 6.56, the highest ever
recorded. According to BB cosmology the object lies more than 13
billion lightyears from Earth, and by implication existed a mere 780
million years after the initial big bang. Another team of astronomers
was reported to have imaged a primordial grouping of galaxies —making
it the most distant known cluster. Think about this for a moment.
Fully formed galaxies and complete galaxy clusters all less than one
billion years old! But galaxies simply cannot form in such a short
time. Hence, an age paradox.
Normally a paradox is justification for model abandonment. However,
the BB model pulled a rabbit from its hat —something called
inflation (another mystery included below).
The horizon mystery can be described in somewhat simplified
terms in the following way. Consider the early BB universe at 300,000
years after its singularity genesis. The temperature of the sky
in opposite directions was about 3000 Kelvin (per BB theory). These
opposite regions are not in contact and cannot influence each other.
Yet amazingly, 10 or 15 billion years later (in the BB present era)
the measured temperature in the opposite extremes of the sky are equal
to each other by better than 1 part in 10,000. Remarkably, the Cosmic
Background Radiation (having 2.7 K temperature) observable in any
direction of our cosmic horizon does not deviate by more than 1 part
in 10,000. How is such coordination possible? This is known as the
horizon riddle in BB cosmology. [Edward Wright, Cosmology
Tutorial Part 3
www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm ]
(also known as the inhomogeneity
mystery)
The following statement was true when it was
written in the 1980s. For BB believers it is still true today.
|
|
How the original unstructured
universe evolved into its present highly structured state is a
major unsolved riddle in cosmology.
—E.R. Harrison [Cosmology, the Science of the Universe,
p218] |
|
The structure being referred to here is not of galaxies
themselves but the structure of the grouping of galaxies —the way they
cluster, the way they arrange into superclusters.
|
|
Rich superclusters and voids form a
quasi-regular lattice; ... However, there are several problems not
solved yet. [Such as] How large is the region of the regular
superclusters-void network? ... Finally, the theoretical
questions: Why is there a preferred scale and why does it have a
[specific] value?
... no experimental result can be taken seriously if not
explained theoretically.
Also further theoretical analysis is needed to find the physical
origin of the scale and the extent of the regularity.
—Jaan Einasto [The Structure of the Universe on 100MPC Scales,
World Scientific Feb 13, 2003] |
|
Let me make this clear: Astronomer Einasto, in his 2003 Paper, is
telling us that we should not take seriously the observed cellular
structure of the Universe because none of the BB theories predict or
support such findings!!
Professor Einasto please read your email. It is time to abandon the
road to nowhere; time to make a right turn. However, I harbor no
illusions. Text messages may travel around the globe almost
instantaneously; ideas may take decades; and history records theories
that have taken centuries to gain acceptance.
Evidently the steering wheel of the BB wagon is stuck, as we
witness the BB Designers searching for intelligibility, unfortunately
in the same old wrong direction. The situation is so desperate that
they are willing to try almost anything. For instance, some
cosmologists have decided that understanding is now to be sought in,
of all things, “randomness”! That’s right, chaotic processes! BB
cosmology is now focusing on the disorder of structure, or
randomness: “The naïve notion that at some scale the cosmos
becomes uniform has been replaced by an appreciation that the
large-scale structure of the universe must be understood in terms of
random processes.” [Mapping the Universe, Scientific American
June1999 p38] Although the quote by astrophysicist Stephen D. Landy
expresses optimism that the new understanding will “help in untangling
some of the thorniest issues in cosmology”, this ‘new insight’ only
serves to further misdirect the unroadworthy BB model.
New understanding? New insight? Not to mention a new working
relationship between astronomers and theoreticians: Einasto observes
orderly cosmic-cell structure and professor Landy orders-up a theory
of disorder!
What can I say? ... If you don’t understand the workings of the
Universe, simply call them “random process.” But take note, randomness
may lead to confusion. Nevertheless, for some of the faithful
professionals it seems that confusion is a good sign, as
expressed in the next comment.
|
|
[T]he Universe is a complicated
place, to put it mildly, and it is silly to think we will run out
of productive lines of research anytime soon. Confusion is a sign
that we are doing something right: it is the fertile commotion of
a construction site.”
—James E. Peebles [Making Sense of Modern Cosmology,
Scientific American Cosmos, 2002 Vol 12, No 2] |
|
BB cosmology has been under construction during many many years.
How long? Since 1932, to be exact. When, when indeed, will the weary
crews notice that it lacks a proper foundation?
Must move on, other mysteries await.
Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics for 1979,
has written: “Theoretical physicists have been trying for years to
understand the cancellation of the cosmological constant, so far
without having found any convincing explanation.” [1992. Dreams of
a Final Theory, p225]
“... most efforts concerning the cosmological
constant now focus on finding the underlying misunderstanding, the
missing piece of the standard model or the misconception about the
vacuum ...” —Larry Abbot [The
Mystery of the Cosmological constant,
Scientific American May 1988] Incidentally, this Scientific American
article is considered a classic.
“In spite of a lot of hard work and creative
ideas we still do not know why the cosmological constant is so small.”
—Larry Abbot [Ibid.]
“Not even [Stephen] Hawking claimed to
understand the cosmological constant problem.”
— D. Overbye [Lonely
Hearts of the Cosmos, p241]
Indeed, there is a “cancellation” that was
overlooked (and still is). The DSSU theory provides the resolution,
and reveals the cancellation that makes it possible to actually have a
positive cosmological constant while observing a null value. As
described in the research papers, the key is the intrinsic pattern of
the dynamics of space which produces, on the cosmic scale, a
cancellation of the large scale effects of the cosmological constant.
It is a truly simple and elegant large-scale mechanism whereby
space expansion (the manifestation of the cosmological
constant) is cancelled by space contraction. ...
The quest for the Holy Grail of the cosmological constant
leads directly to the cellular nature of the Dynamic Steady State
Universe.
BB cosmology, because it concentrates almost exclusively on
universal expansion, simply lacks the cancellation mechanism.
Like a tour guide Roger Penrose announces the next point of
interest, “Here we run into the unresolved and controversial issue of
how galaxies are actually formed, ...” [1990. The Emperor’s New
Mind, p328]
And in case my fellow travelers have any doubt, Steven Weinberg
assures us, “No one knows how galaxies formed...” [1992. Dreams of
a Final Theory, p239]
I have cited a mathematician, a particle physicist, and now I cite
an astronomer-astrophysicist.
“It is not too much to say that the
understanding of why there are these different kinds of galaxy, of how
galaxies originate, constitutes the biggest problem in present-day
astronomy.” —Fred Hoyle [as in
Harrison, E. R. 1981. Cosmology, the Science of the Universe,
p68]
In conventional galaxy formation theory,
intergalactic space is supposed to be virtually empty. It is not.
Furthermore, angular momentum is supposed to be retained. It is not
retained. “Unfortunately, in the simulations the angular momentum
leaks away ... to the dark matter ... Apparently the models are still
missing an essential ingredient.” [Scientific American Special Ed.
Cosmos 2002, p21]
“It remains to be seen whether the problems
really can be fixed or whether they indicate a need for a completely
new framework [for] our theory of galaxy formation ...”
[Ibidem]
Significantly and not by happenstance, the
latter Scientific American article gives no source, no casual
mechanism, for the angular momentum. This glaring omission takes us to
the next impasse along the BB road.
Question. What is it that starts galaxies spinning? ... Check
any textbook or research paper. You will find no clear answer. Nowhere
will you find the root cause of the rotation of galaxies! Of course,
we do know the secondary cause: two galaxies moving in
opposite directions (that is, approaching each other) start orbiting
each other, and then merge into a spinning spiral galaxy. This aspect
is not a mystery. The deep mystery in standard cosmology
is why any two galaxies would be heading in opposing
directions!?
All galaxies are supposed to partake in a universal expansion; all
are part of one-and-the-same explosion-like expansion; all heading in
the same radial direction. Galaxies do not bounce off cosmic walls and
they certainly do not change direction on their own.
The “so-called morphology-density relation has long puzzled
astronomers.” Where galaxies are sparsely distributed through space,
spirals dominate the population, only 10 to 20 percent are
ellipticals. For the galaxies that are packed into clusters the
situation is reversed. “Ellipticals are the majority, and the spirals
that do exist are anemic systems depleted of gas and young stars.” [G.
Kauffmann, & F. Bosch. The Life Cycle of Galaxies, Scientific
American Special Ed. Cosmos 2002]
A fundamental question: Is the universe limited or is it limitless
in size?
|
|
We do not know whether the universe
as a whole is finite or infinite in extent —either in space or in
time —R. Penrose [1990,
The Emperor’s New Mind p4] |
|
How can it be other than infinite? What is it about the
universe-is-everything principle that astronomer-physicists don’t
understand? The facts: A finite universe has a boundary; a boundary
that divides what is in the universe from what is outside the
universe. But you can’t have anything whatsoever outside the universe.
A finite universe presents a clear violation of the all-inclusive
principle which requires that everything that IS, including
boundaries and that which the boundaries divide, must be part
of the universe. (Also see The Crisis of 1998, below)
Another aspect of this mystery is that BB Cosmology does not
officially commit itself to either finitude or infinitude.
The penultimate mystery surely must be the enigmatic effect known
as gravitation. Most truth seekers seem to agree that the riddle
of gravitation ranks second only to the mystery of existence
itself.
Newton’s theory of gravity provided a
numerical description of how matter-to-matter attraction works but did
not explain what gravity is.
|
|
I have not been able to discover
the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I
frame no hypotheses; —Isaac Newton |
|
In 1916 Albert Einstein perfected the mathematical analysis of the
phenomenon. His general theory of relativity is considered the current
standard theory of gravitation. The theory gives an amazingly precise
description of the gravitational distortion of space; matter tells
space how to curve, while the curvature of space tells matter how to
move. But why? and how? is left unexplained.
|
|
Gravity as a warping of space was a
credible notion, though it gave not the least hint as to the
nature or origin of gravitation; why the presence of matter should
affect ‘space’ was left unexplained.—Edward
Milne [As in Harrison, E. R. 1981. Cosmology, the Science of
the Universe, p316] |
|
This missing explanation for the cause of gravity is probably the
reason that Einstein’s distinguished student, Peter G. Bergmann,
titled his book The Riddle of Gravitation (Dover
Publications, Inc., New York).
In standard cosmological models it is a mystery how matter manages
to curve the space around it. It is a mystery how matter senses and
responds to space curvature. How indeed does matter/energy curl up
physical space?
What about gravitons, you ask?
|
|
Is gravitation best attributed to
the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of masses or to a
force between masses? Or should it be attributed to the actions of
a type of fundamental particle called a graviton, as conjectured
in some modern physics theories? We do not know.
—Halliday et al. [Fundamentals of Physics 5th
Ed. p339] |
|
“...the single most important unknown fact in cosmology: the shape of
the universe.” [Editor of Scientific
American Sept 1998 p22]
You can really get lost in this Gordian mystery as you enter the
twisted realm of topology and multiple higher dimensions.
Unraveling the topological shape of the universe involves the esoteric
branch of cosmology that is explored exclusively by mathematicians. We
don’t hear much about successes in this field simply because there
aren’t any. The mathematical complexity is so multi-layered that the
challenge is in knowing when you’ve arrived at the answer, for the
answer may be as, or even more, complex than the original question.
For instance, the simplest version of string theory proposes that the
universe has nine dimensions. Not five, six, seven, or eight, but
exactly nine!
The mystery here, at least for the rest of us who still like to
think in terms of objective reality, is this: Why bother with higher
dimensions when the real universe has only three spatial dimensions
(and a dimension of time)?
Lest my fellow travelers become weary along this road of a failing
cosmology they may be consoled by the assurance that clear and
definitive resolutions for all the mysteries being encountered are
available. Remember the fork in the road described earlier. There lies
the road of resolutions —that other road, rejected and by-passed back
in the year 1887. Be assured an entirely different experience is in
store, one that will fulfill our need for clear, objective, intuitive,
and self-consistent answers. It is the road that the DSSU research
papers follow.
The Planck scale is where small becomes really really small. This
mystery deals with the fundamental nature of space and
space-time on a scale of quantum units —a truly unimaginable small
scale.
|
|
But nobody has a precise notion of
exactly what happens when and where inside the fundamental
space-time uncertainty volume.—Henning Genz [1994.
Nothingness, The Science of Empty Space, p205] |
|
Treat this one with deep respect —for this is the mind-boggling
mystery where cosmology, the science of the ultimately large,
meets particle physics, the science of the ultimately small.
This mystery is almost completely overlooked by the mainstream. The
BB model hypothesizes that at the birth of the universe everything was
symmetrical. Matter particles and anti-matter particles were formed in
neat and tidy particle/antiparticle pairs. For some strange reason
there was a disruption in the symmetry favoring the formation of
ordinary matter over the anti-stuff. The next cataclysmic event in the
birth of the BB universe involved the almost complete annihilation of
matter and anti-matter as they recombined. After the dust settled on
this energy releasing annihilation, mostly ordinary matter remained
(since there was slightly more of it to start with) and formed
everything we see in the universe.
The bewildering mystery: Where did the energy of annihilation go?!
We are talking about the conversion of mass into energy. There is
no conversion of any kind that produces more energy. Both matter and
anti-matter possess mass. When matter meets anti-matter enormous
energy is released. So, where did the energy of annihilation go? ...
The BB model(s) neglect the vast amount of energy produced by the
mutual annihilation. It neglects the probability that this energy can
go into new particle formation.
I strongly suspect that the mainstream detours around this one
because the hypothesis itself sounds too implausible.
And speaking of missing stuff ...
The standard Cosmology has been, for several decades, in search of
the missing mass, or what is now called dark
matter, needed to produce the ‘observed’ gravitation.
|
|
It is embarrassing to admit, but
astronomers still don’t know what our universe is made of. The
objects that emit radiation that we can observe —such as stars,
quasars and galaxies— constitute only a small fraction of the
universe’s matter.—Martin
Rees [Exploring Our Universe and Others, Scientific
American Cosmos 2002 p84] |
|
Not only embarrassing, but by now, downright discouraging.
Conventional Cosmology is in dire need of a prodigious amount of
dark matter for the purpose of explaining (1) the spiral
galaxy anomaly (whereby the galaxy as a whole rotates far too quickly
according to Newton’s theory) and (2) the cohesion of galaxy clusters.
Without dark matter, according to the conventional argument,
spirals and clusters would fly apart for lack of gravitational mass.
The dark matter has never been seen, which is not surprising —it’s
dark. The problem is that it has never been detected by any means
whatsoever. The mystery is that the academics in the field have no
idea what constitutes this dark stuff!
Could it be? ... Good grief! ... Maybe it’s all just a monstrous
error:
|
|
... a nagging doubt
[in mainstream cosmology theories]:
Could the enthusiasm generated by inflation [theory] and its
offshoots conceal a monstrous error? —João Magueijo
[Scientific American Cosmos 2002 p98] |
|
A helpful tip for those new to the subject of cosmology: When you
see the word “inflation” in connection with mainstream cosmology it
simply means a super fast Big Bang genesis. Yes, it’s faster than a
speeding bullet —even faster than the speed of light. Does it violate
the laws of physics? Probably not. And that would be because during
this early evolutionary stage the laws of physics are still being
coded and have not been finalized. Most convenient —at least for those
committed to this hypothesis.
Confronted with frantic expansion faster
than lightspeed and fickle laws of physics ... what can I
say? With no constraints on reality, science becomes impotent! The
pursuit of objectivity becomes meaningless. And Academic Cosmology
becomes modern myth-making.
Inflation is a make-believe mystery.
Despite the rough going the establishment is committed to staying
the course. The practitioners of the BB hypothesis know the problems.
They know the seriousness and extent. And they occasionally express
doubts about its validity —warning us that there may be flaws,
helpfully labeling their product with disclaimers.
|
|
... we have our doubts about the
ultimate validity of the modern standard models of elementary
particle physics and cosmology, ...
—Henning Genz [Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space,
p79]
The universe may have remained the same, at all times, on the
average. There are theories that have matter formation and
disintegration balance each other at all times. I, together with
the majority of scientists, don’t believe this to be a viable
model. But beware of majority rule
among scientists; the reader would do well to be open to
alternatives that might replace the accepted model of the hot Big
Bang. —Henning Genz [Ibid. p268] |
|
Anyone with even a passing interest in space science is familiar
with this unforeseen development that occurred in 1998. In that year
the research into the decay of distant supernovae events revealed that
these objects are actually considerably farther from us than had been
expected. The findings were so contrary to theory that at first there
was considerable doubt. It was only after another study, by an
independent team, came to the same conclusion (that these ‘standard
candle stars’ were 20% to 25% farther than expected) that the crisis
hit home. The standard theories of the universe, the hot big bang
model and inflationary big bang model, had predicted that the
matter in the universe thrown out by the "big bang" should decelerate
as gravity acts to slow down this matter and eventually pull it all
inward in a "big crunch." But now, it seems, the opposite is true: the
speed of expansion of the universe is increasing! Mysteriously,
the universe is now accelerating.
The failure of standard big bang theory became dramatically
obvious. The crisis threatened to destroy long-standing theories and
almost immediately was detailed in a PBS NOVA program. And four
years later (in 2002) it was a televised feature story on
60 Minutes. Imagine casually throwing up your car keys; imagine
your surprise when they don’t fall back into your hand. Physicists are
still scratching their heads. The New York Times on Jan 1,
2002, reported:
|
|
It’s definitely the strangest
experimental finding since I’ve been in physics,
—Dr. Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Studies in
Princeton |
|
The old standard Big Bang theory failed a key reality check and
lost credibility. In a perfect world the 1998 experiments would have
doomed the BB model.
|
|
If the facts do not agree with the
consequences of the hypothesis, the latter is destroyed, and we
must try some other hypothesis.
—Bertrand Russell. [The Wisdom of the West, p72] |
|
But no. Instead of being dispatched the theory was promptly patched
and rehabilitated while a host of big bang variants appeared —a
literal inflation of models.
While any non-committed rational observer might ask “is the
acceleration even real?” or is it only apparent? as Overbye asked in
his Jan 1, 2002, article; those committed to the BB cause were less
cautious. They had an agenda —a road that had to be faithfully
followed.
And so, in 1998 astronomers and physicists convinced themselves
that the universe is accelerating —getting bigger and bigger, faster
and faster. How exciting! But wait a minute. ... Now there is a new
mystery! What’s driving this thing? Why is the universe accelerating?
... Forget the minimal mystery of why the universe is expanding in the
first place; now there is the utterly baffling mystery of why it is
expanding with a vengeance!
|
|
In other ways this new dark
[acceleration leads to dilution
which leads to darkness] universe is utterly baffling, a road
map to new mysteries. Dr. Marc Davis, a cosmologist at the
University of California at Berkeley, called it ‘a universe chock
full of exotics that don’t make sense to anybody.’ —Dennis
Overbye [The New York Times July 23, 2002] |
|
This road to new mysteries sounds like the same old
wrong road we’ve been struggling along.
A brief and much needed reality check: The Universe (the
capitalized one, not the model one) does NOT expand. Perfectly valid
principles of cosmology say it can’t. In science you simply cannot
pick and choose fundamental principles. Principles are valid not
because they have been proven valid, but rather because they are
reasonable and no one has been able to disprove them. All agree that
the universe-is-everything principle is valid. Unless you can
come up with a comprehensible answer to the question, What does the
universe expand into? (and does not violate the all-inclusiveness
idea) then face the reality that the Universe is already FULLY
EXPANDED —always has, always will be.
Other Mysteries: The above compilation is by no means complete.
There are others, equally fascinating.
Mystery of the Photon’s Fate.
Olbers’ Paradox: True enough, Olbers’ Paradox has been resolved
for the expanding universe, however, since the real Universe is not
expanding, this paradox must once again be considered an unresolved
mystery. This centuries old conundrum now has a new resolution that
has not yet been published.
The Mass Question: What is the simple mechanism that bestows
the property of mass?
Allow me to conclude with a mystery that encompasses most of what has
preceded:
“...why is it so easy to demonstrate
that they [professional cosmologists] are on the wrong track?” —
Roy C Martin Jr.
[1999. Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete
Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco, p123]
* * *
080313
Copyright © 2006-2008 by Conrad Ranzan |
|
