The Final Theory

[leeroy]

Tom,

Thanks for the encouraging reply. Although I'm not on chapter 6 yet, here is what the author says on his book summary page on his web site:

 

Is Our Universe Truly Expanding?

The concept of a universe that is not only expanding, but accelerating its expansion due to mysterious "Dark Energy" is yet another clearly flawed belief. But further, it is a belief that our scientists already know better than to follow since it is based on the completely unsupported assumption that distant Red-Shifted light is explained by the same Doppler Effect as shifted sound frequencies. But light is such a completely different phenomenon than sound that this is an extremely speculative assumption. But also, light is widely known to be Red Shifted by other far simpler causes, such as merely passing through plastics and gases of all sorts. The fact that light appears Red-Shifted after traveling billions of light years through space, which is filled with all manner of radiation, particles, and materials should surprise no scientifically educated individual, and lends no particular credibility to the belief in an ever-accelerating expanding universe with no known power source, driven by some sort of mysterious "Dark Energy".

 

I'm not sure if he considers "radiation, particles, and materials" space debris or not, but that's the way I took it.

 

I don't know if the author is on the right path or not, but one thing is for sure he does present some interesting ideas and makes you think about currently held beliefs about how things work within the bounds of our knowledge. To me science is about considering and researching possibilities, even if they seem strange. And if anything, hopefully I'll come away with a better understanding of physics in general after reading his book.

 

Lee

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseon: McCutcheon's theory is based on expansion causing gravity, or what we experience as gravity. Some of the issues I have with this view, is the following:

1) If expansion is fact, then why don't larger planets (with higher 'gravity', they should be expanding at a greater rate, according to McCutcheon) swallow smaller planets? We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Jupiter and the Sun, for that matter, 'cause they've been *expanding* at a much greater rate than planet Earth.

Well, if McCutcheon is right, for the same reason Jupiter hasn't swallowed up the earth if gravity sucks. The implication, which is anything but obvious, is that our ability to perceive - to be directly aware of the expansion - doesn't exist. In order to comprehend anything we need a fixed frame of reference. We've evolved with a built in blindness to it because it would serve absolutely no purpose but to confuse us if we were perceptually aware of it. It can only be inferred.

Boerseon: 2) How does Expansion Theory cater for orbits? I can understand the rationale for trying to use 'expansion' as the cause of the gravity-effect, but that should only be observable when on the surface of the mass (planet or star) where the 'expansion' is causing an upward acceleration. Why would Expansion drive the planets circling the Sun?

Well put. I had problems with this part too. I could get orbits to work through 180 degrees but couldn't figure out how the hell a moon went all the way around a planet or a planet went all the way around a sun. So after about a year I decided to come at it (again, ASSUMING McCutcheon is correct) from a different direction. In correspondence with McCutcheon on this very issue, he pointed out that he had exactly the same problem. If I understand it correctly, straight line motion doesn't exist and what we perceive is actually the first derivative (my term) of what is actually happening underneath.

Boerseon: 3) Black Holes (according to McCutcheon) should be physically the largest items in the Universe, seeing as they are the most massive. According to classical theory, they've just punched a hell of a big dent in space/time, from expansion theory, they're just expanding at more than c (seeing as even light can't escape). This being the case, every Black Hole is expanding faster than the visible edge of the Universe. Therefore, if there is any primordial Black Holes, they should have swallowed the whole observable Universe by now. Which is either not the case, or we're already inside one of the suckers. Which seems rather unlikely.

lol. Very well put. You are assuming that McCutcheon thinks black holes are expanding at the speed of light. He doesn't. If I understand him correctly, he likens a black hole to a burnt out and smashed light bulb. Not as glamorous as what is commonly thought, eh? His explanation is much more elegant than mine.

One final comment and then I'm going to bail. The hardest problems to solve are the ones where the initial observations are incorrect. But the symptoms are similar. Every time you end up on the end of a branch, it breaks. The genius of the human species is that we are aware of awareness and that strikes at the heart of the issue.

[Boerseun]

Idsoftwaresteve:

 

Thanks for the extended reply.

 

However, and I mean this in all kindness, you haven't answered any of the issues I have with McCutcheon's premise.

 

Likening black holes to 'burnt out lightbulbs' is not only overly simplistic, but I think totally wrong. The bending of light by gravity has been proven, and the degree by which it is bent has been calibrated for the specific mass doing the bending. It therefore follows that the more mass is added, the more light (which follows space) would be observably bent. Up until a point where a black hole forms. With a 'burnt out light bulb' I can only imagine he's referring to a dead star, a brown dwarf or something similar. But even a dead star will turn into a black hole if you keep on adding mass.

 

I honestly think McCutcheon is trying to promote an understandable, simplistic view of the Cosmos in order to sell his book to the uneducated masses who can't follow complicated analogies and examples. He would, after all, have a much larger audience than Hawking, for instance.

 

He is to be commended for trying to bring science to the masses. But it doesn't help at all if he's flat out wrong.

[Tom Palmer]

Tom,

Thanks for the encouraging reply. Although I'm not on chapter 6 yet, here is what the author says on his book summary page on his web site:

 

Is Our Universe Truly Expanding?

The concept of a universe that is not only expanding, but accelerating its expansion due to mysterious "Dark Energy" is yet another clearly flawed belief. But further, it is a belief that our scientists already know better than to follow since it is based on the completely unsupported assumption that distant Red-Shifted light is explained by the same Doppler Effect as shifted sound frequencies. But light is such a completely different phenomenon than sound that this is an extremely speculative assumption. But also, light is widely known to be Red Shifted by other far simpler causes, such as merely passing through plastics and gases of all sorts. The fact that light appears Red-Shifted after traveling billions of light years through space, which is filled with all manner of radiation, particles, and materials should surprise no scientifically educated individual, and lends no particular credibility to the belief in an ever-accelerating expanding universe with no known power source, driven by some sort of mysterious "Dark Energy".

 

I'm not sure if he considers "radiation, particles, and materials" space debris or not, but that's the way I took it.

 

I don't know if the author is on the right path or not, but one thing is for sure he does present some interesting ideas and makes you think about currently held beliefs about how things work within the bounds of our knowledge. To me science is about considering and researching possibilities, even if they seem strange. And if anything, hopefully I'll come away with a better understanding of physics in general after reading his book.

 

Lee

 

Friend Lee,

 

Thank you for your kind reply and for clarifying what McCutcheon says about the Hubble redshift.

 

Until I read his claims about the effect, I was willing to give him the benefit of at least a little doubt, but no more. He says that "light is widely known to be Red Shifted by other far simpler causes, such as merely passing through plastics and gases of all sorts." To which I can only reply, "Aaarrrghh!!!" I mean ... who are these vague, nebulous authorities who allegedly 'widely know' that light can be red-shifted by passing through plastics, etc.? (It can't!) So much for proof.

 

I must now categorically state: He is either ignorant or dishonest. If he actually believes his claim, then he is ignorant or has deceived himself. If (as I suspect) he knows better, then he is intellectually dishonest and is counting on the reader's unfamiliarity with the Doppler effect to get away with it. He implies that the Doppler effect for light has been extrapolated from its known effect on sound waves, and that it is therefore an "assumption" that is "unsupported" and "extremely speculative." As CraigD would put it: "Baloney." (Please note the six red flags he lists at the beginning of his posting.)i

 

The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves (light, etc.) was discovered by the French physicist Fizeau back in 1848. In the intervening 157 years, it has been abundantly proven. It is routinely relied on in the space program. To give just one example: The Galileo probe was able to reveal the mass of the Jovian moon Amalthea by means of the measurable Doppler shift in the probe's radio signals - increasing as it approached the moon, then decreasing as it receded from it.

 

Yes, it is necessary to stretch the mind and not be slavishly bound to traditional models. But that doesn't make every heterodox idea right, or justify the rude dismissal and reckless disregard for ideas that have proven their worth - even if in time they will be superseded. Newton's greatness lay not just in conceiving the law of universal gravitation and then writing a book. He mathematically developed his model and established proofs based on actual measurements of the celestial bodies. Then and only then, he published his Principia - twenty years after he had his first inking of universal gravitation. McCutcheon is no Newton. :hihi:

 

Thanks again, Lee, for sharing your thoughts. :sad:

 

Tom Palmer

[emessay]

I am really a poor man in following latest theories in final theory or theory of everything[TOE], actually I am 44 yrs old as a practical engineer try to look everything related humans: 10,000 yrs civilized consciousness, 4.5 bya life evolution on Earth , and 13.7 bya baryonic particle evolution of universe.

 

Imagine human history chronology and 'THE HUMAN-FACE MIMIC FACTOR' behind history from Hammurabi Code Mesopotania, gods pyramids of Egypt, Plato academy, Aristotle syllogism, Alexander hellenism expansion and invasion, Xi Huang Ti Great Wall China, Cleopatra and Caesar Romans Empire expansion to Europe, Islam expansion and invasion, Battle of Tours till Crusaders met Saladdin in Jerussalem. Why should Albert Einstein [Jewish] tried to solve 'equation of everything E=mc2' , why not Ts'ai Lun should discover the equation even paper and powder gun was discovered from China. Why Hitler hates Jewish and how about if Hitler use the first nuke or perhaps if Genghis Khan invade Europe for hundred years like Romans Empire.

 

What a wonderful world.....Uhh Yeahhh.....that's a song of...... EVERYTHING

 

That's why I believe in SHAKESPEARE words that say : WE'RE ON STAGE OF THEATRE, the theatre of human-face mimics, theatre of space time , and also theatre of life, perhaps our consciousness are only 'surviellence tool' in zooming universe journey which will be finalized or restarted 'BY OTHER'.

 

10,000 yrs human civilization, in searching of everything, wisemen always say humanity is ALL OF EVERYTHING, that's we are on stage of theatre of universe, like we create chess-board for our game and we play its numerical step by step to challange ourselves.

 

But do not forget that the poor people are the big sum of 6 billion around on 'EVERYTHING OF ONE EARTH' and we're still thinking everything beyond nothing out there.

 

That's paradox of everything...................... :hihi:

[Boerseun]

You're all wrong.

 

The HOKEY POKEY is what its all about.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Boerseon:Likening black holes to 'burnt out lightbulbs' is not only overly simplistic, but I think totally wrong. The bending of light by gravity has been proven, and the degree by which it is bent has been calibrated for the specific mass doing the bending. It therefore follows that the more mass is added, the more light (which follows space) would be observably bent. Up until a point where a black hole forms. With a 'burnt out light bulb' I can only imagine he's referring to a dead star, a brown dwarf or something similar. But even a dead star will turn into a black hole if you keep on adding mass.

He was drawing an analogy and simply saying that the current concept of a black hole having a gravity so strong that it won't even let light escape is incorrect.

I'm done discussing this. Let's let some time pass and see what happens. But here's something to think about: Existence doesn't give a crap what we think. Whatever is, is. The downside to not considering the possibilities is to induce blindness to whatever truth lies down that path and all the discoveries connected to that truth.

We've hit a wall scientifically, in my common-man, huddled-masses mind, and the symptom is all of the goofy, incredibly hard to comprehend (and most likely wrong) explanations of how some things work. I think most of it is bullshit. Bullshit that has alienated most of us common-folk and bullshit that improperly elevates the spreaders of it to the status of 'guru'.

So hang on to your warped space-time, event-horizoned model my friend. If we survive long enough maybe we'll find out what really is true.

[emessay]

And.......we must examine ourselves firstly : "Who are 'WE' really 'WE'RE FORMED' ? Are we only matters+electron+photon mechanism ? or Are we only shadows and dust for the future ? Can we explain conscious process in microtubule with Bose-Einstein equation only ? or what ??

 

Thinks before 'we' plan to create atmosphere on Mars next to another journey at nearest star of Alpha Centaury ........4.5 light years........... :hihi:

[Tom Palmer]

When I was growing up back in the 1940's, there was a clever Arlen-Mercer song that was a big hit. It advised: “(You got to) Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative, Latch on to the Affirmative, And don’t mess with Mister In-Between.”

 

One of my problems with Mark McCutcheon’s world-view is the manner in which he “eliminates the negative.” The uninformed reader won’t notice it, but it’s there, just the same. It is called “finessing,” and I see evidence that he relies on it heavily.

 

A conventional idea clashes with his model?

Step 1: Proclaim it to be wrong.

Step 2. Throw in a stopgap ad-hoc notion to replace it, ignore the obvious objections to the new notion, and call it proof (e.g., tides caused by wobble in the earth’s spin).

Step 3: Remind the reader that new ideas have always been rejected and their creators vilified.

Step 4 (optional): Throw in a little of your own vilification. Knock the physics establishment. Mount a subtle ad hominem attack on Newton, Einstein, et al. (never mind that you have elsewhere acknowledged the usefulness of their contributions.)

 

And his publisher is guilty of the same bad habit, evidently with his approval. Consider the so-called “Professional Reviews” shown on the book’s website. It strikes me a little odd that they used the plural, when there is exactly one such review. But let’s not be picky - we’ll just take a closer look at that one lone review.

 

It is by Chris Benfield, a writer for the Yorkshire Post in England. Now, Chris is a stand-up guy - I know this because I e-mailed him on his newspaper’s website, and he promptly responded, kindly e-mailing me the entire text of his article on “The Final Theory.”

 

I must admit that the article was very balanced and fair. It was clearly not Chris’ intent to denigrate the book, but, on the other hand, he did not give it his endorsement either. Reading the article gave me a chance to compare the publisher’s quotes with the original review itself.

 

Chris was identified by the book’s publisher as a “science writer,” but the implication that science is his specialty may be wide of the mark. Browse the Post’s website, and you will find that Chris writes on a variety of news and topics. But - on to the quotes!

 

One quote is exact: “If there is an award for most ambitious amateur scientist of 2003, Mark McCutcheon must be a candidate.” But note that the reference is to his being “ambitious” - and nothing more.

 

The other quote was souped up a little: “My favorite science theory of the year!” The referenced statement was drawn from the lead-in to Chris’ article: “Hang on to your seats. They could be moving towards outer space at 16 feet a second. Chris Benfield explains his favourite science theory of the year just gone [2003].”

 

“Favorite” can mean any number of things besides utter conviction that the theory is a slam-dunk. Some have said it is a “good read.” Others attest that they learned a lot of science from it. Some find his irreverence for “sacred cows” appealing, etc. So we can’t infer too much there.

 

The book’s publisher changed this quote from third person (“his favourite . . .”) to first person (“My favorite”). No big deal, but still, it’s supposed to be a direct quote.

 

The other tweaking was the addition of an exclamation mark. And doing that made it a big fat lie. It implies enthusiasm and, by implication, acceptance of the theory. And so, that one little mark is a big deal.

 

In Chris Benfield’s e-mail to me, he included a short second article entitled “Pioneers in the Appliance of Science.” It briefly outlines the contributions of Newton, Einstein, and McCutcheon. In each case, Chris Benfield then asks: “What’s wrong with what he said/says?” In the first two instances, unanswered questions remained.

 

And McCutcheon? “So far, you cannot find a scientist to take it seriously. And it’s like the theory that the moon is made of green cheese - arguable, but unlikely on the face of it.”

 

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the publisher to add that little remark to his less-than-multitudinous “Professional Reviews.”

 

Tom Palmer

[coldcreation]

CraigD, though I agree with most of your red flags and your other words, there is a problem with the 3rd red flag. You write: “3. It states or implies that existing theories are too badly flawed to be expanded or corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is necessary.”

 

Your use of the word “theories” is vague. For example, being more specific, I could state that existing theories, big bang models, inflation, new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, the ekpyrotic model, GUTs, string theory, superstring theory, M-theory, just to name a few, are too badly flawed to be corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is required.

 

Your use of the word “theories” seems to group other theories that have been tested, e.g., general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Why? Ultimately, a new theory is required if ever unification is to be understood, if ever the origin of the universe is to be understood, and if ever gravity is to be understood (we may as well though in the cosmological constant into the melée).

 

Finally, you write “Regardless of how revolutionary a scientific theory is, it must make experimentally testable predictions. Extraordinary claims require proof, in the form of experimental confirmation of these claims. Appeals to intuition and simplicity are not enough.” You certainly know that string theory, M-theory, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation make extraordinary claims (extra dimensions, branes, extra universes) that cannot be tested or observed, ever.

 

The other theories (big bang models, inflation, new inflation...) had made predictions that turned out to be erroneous: the expansion deceleration parameter turned out to be an acceleration parameter, the universe is not flat now, the galaxy formation era that was thought (predicted) to exist a billion years after t = 0 is not there (see the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field image available online), the Hubble Law or predicted velocity dispersions of galaxies, quasars, supernovae, etc. is violated just about everywhere (see the photographic plates yourself: Arp, H. 1998, Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science).

 

Clearly, in absence of a solid basis of observational verification or experimental corroboration, a projected hypothesis is not on firm ground. Modern cosmology and the ‘new physics’ it has erected to fill the growing breach between theory and empirical evidence has fallen prey to man-made contrivance. Like the concept of god, the big bang should have gone to wrack and ruin long ago. Now, one can declare what one likes and cannot be proved wrong; and so, is liberated from the standard restraints of scientific discipline. Any wacky theory or madcap philosophy submitted by a well-known physicist these days is potentially a whole career move, especially if a television crew is hovering in the vicinity.

 

The aim of this debate is to open an objective discussion of the evidence, or lack of evidence, that supports or undermines the standard model, our interpretations, and our uncertainties; not based on a dogmatic proclamation of unconditional truth, but to open locked doors that will lead to fresh insight, or at least indicate the most hopeful direction and method of exploration; and which hold the most promising potential for reaching solid conclusions in the future.

 

The standard model and those theories that battle for pole-position have been tremendously significant to the field of cosmology, as they have provided a basis for the assembly of decisive tests to verify the consistency of the sub-structure and reliability of the theories when confronted by observations. But when the consistency and reliability is deficient, or nonexistent, a confrontation arises; either we modify or abandon the models.

 

One fundamental issue we are obliged to face here is not which model do we choose as the standard model; clearly the problems stem from the fact that inflation and the likes are based on the requirement that the universe is expanding, which inevitably leads to some form of initial hot dense high energy phase when the clocks are reversed and where all known physical laws become useless.

 

A theory should be chosen for its internal consistency, simplicity and aesthetic appeal, its beauty and elegance; its logical tightness, free from initial conditions, arbitrariness of relationships and parameters; it must have strong intrinsic and extrinsic explanatory power that provides a basis for further development; across all fields of physics. The theory must be capable of making predictions that can be tested and substantiated observationally; it should possess a sound conceptual framework within which data can be analyzed and interpreted; its implications must allow for meaningful scientific investigation and healthy debate within the cosmological community as well as outside of this domain.

 

Notwithstanding all this, the old vision offered by modern cosmology makes it inevitable now to see an enormous question mark suspended around the vacuous concept of “origin” and the vital responsibility it might assume in our conception of both the underpinning of physical science and the nature of the universe in its entirety.

 

There can be no doubt: if the Doppler interpretation for redshift is wrong, as will be demonstrated is very likely the case, expansion is not real, the glitzy big bang congregation falls, the primordial creation of light elements evaporates along with the supposed origin of CMB. So too does a large chunk of the framework developed by astro-particle physicists disappear, the primary focus of which has paralleled and supported quantum high-energy interactions that are supposed to have transpired in and around an event that may never have happened. Hypothetical super-heavy non-baryonic particles and superstrings are entirely founded upon ideas that correspond to massive extrapolations from well-recognized physics. An immeasurable convoluted scaffold has been erected that has not yet attained experimental substantiation and in most cases can never be authenticated or validated observationally.

 

Every qualified scientist (vanity and carnal ambition aside) knows that only observational and experimental verification can determine the final outcome of a theory, its acceptance, or its downfall. If resolution of today’s controversies are to be attained, the theory, whichever one is chosen as the new standard model, has to be established empirically.

 

A comprehensive challenge has been mounted against the assumptions, practices and priorities that go with big bang cosmology. It is a challenge in physics as much as in observational cosmology, based on the belief only in the reality of natural processes, rooted in big bang skepticism and directed against the superior status of the event as a god-like creator. It is a challenge that holds positive alternatives, alternatives that require a radical change of attitude towards the universe and its making.

 

Everyone should take an imperative look at the most recent empirical evidence and examined by what means accurate interpretations of the data can be made; and how innovative conclusions can be drawn that attempt to conquer the difficulties presented by modern cosmology and the messianic prophesies of the Friedmann-Lemaître burnt offerings.

 

Conclusion: it is time for change.

 

A.M. ColdCreation

[CraigD]

Your use of the word “theories” is vague. For example, being more specific, I could state that existing theories, big bang models, inflation, new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, the ekpyrotic model, GUTs, string theory, superstring theory, M-theory, just to name a few, are too badly flawed to be corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is required.

I agree that “theories” is a troublesome term. I like the wikipedia article for “theory”, which suggests that several of the “theories” you list – ones that have not made practically testable predictions - could better be described as “bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience.” A short, easy to remember word to make this distinction would be a welcome addition to scientific language, but I don’t know of one in widespread usage. For now, I’ll use “prototheory”.

 

You certainly know that string theory, M-theory, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation make extraordinary claims (extra dimensions, branes, extra universes) that cannot be tested or observed, ever.

I admit that using the various string, “brane”, and other “theories of everything” to make testable predictions is daunting. It’s tempting to consider many of them to be empty formalisms, no more significant than a particular algebraic substitution made while solving a mechanical question. Still, none of the widely published prototheories of which I’m aware seem in principle untestable.

 

Inflation cosmologies are, I think, too empirical and ad-hock to deserve the same status of Particle Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity. It’s my hope that these more fundamental theories may eventually inform cosmology, which, at the present time, remind me of pre-Copernican solar system models – struggling to explain observation, but doing so by conjecturing much that’s not supportable by fundamental theory.

 

Multiple, completely causally unconnected universes are, I believe, more useful educational analogies than scientific theory. Had I been on Hugh Everett’s dissertation panel, he would not have gotten his Physics PHD on the strength of that idea, interesting though it is, and smart guy though he was.

 

The other theories (big bang models, inflation, new inflation...) had made predictions that turned out to be erroneous

This illustrates well the difference between a bad, unscientific theory, and a good, scientific one that is simply wrong. A good, wrong theory can be falsified, and discarded, in many cases with many of its concepts and formalism intact for reuse in a new theory.

 

I think we agree that cosmology stands out among families of theories, in that we'd very much like to have a cosmological theory as successful as GR or QPM, but don’t yet. Even if all of them to date are terribly wrong, the credible ones I’ve encountered all pass my “baloney test”. Notably, and unlike the McCutcheon’s claim, none of them demand that GR or QPM be completely overturned (red flag 3).

 

I gather it from your screenname that you favor something radically removed from the big bang model. I’m curious to know what.

[coldcreation]

I gather it from your screenname that you favor something radically removed from the big bang model. I’m curious to know what.

 

 

It’s almost entertaining the search for an ultimate theory has led to predictions that cannot be tested, even in principle. It is unlikely a particle accelerator will be built large enough. Entertaining, because it shows what happens to theory when successive modifications are piled one on top of the other, rather than one drastic change. Understandably, physicists are looking at minuscule scales, short time spans, and extremely high energy, density, temperature, and into other dimensions with the minds eye. That ‘new physics’ is sought comes as no surprise either. After all, what good is a theory of everything if doesn’t explain the state of the universe at t = 0. Real physics does not work when applied to such events.

 

It is hard to believe, however, that the problems in contemporary physics is of gravitational origin. Einstein’s theory is so beautiful, with its curved space, it’s time dilation (or relative contraction), its equivalence principle, its symmetry (with the cosmological constant), its gravitational redshift (or blueshift), its gravitational lensing, deflection of light rays, its resolution of Mercury’s perihelion-shift, its prediction of gravitational waves, and its non-Euclidean universe. What more could one ask of a theory?

 

The expansion theory under review in this thread has simply reversed the problem of gravity, albeit in a twisted way: Before, an apple fell to the ground. Now the ground falls to the apple. It does wisely point to gravity as the problem, though hardly a surprising. Everyone knows gravity is the ‘oddball force.’ Einstein, like Newton at an other time, realized the limitations of his theory. Despite, his main battle in the search for a unified theory was of course against quantum mechanics (not without reason).

 

The principle limitation posed by the general postulate of relativity is that there is no limitation imposed to the depth of a potential well. The gravity field could bend to infinity if nature would so allow. GR imposed no limit on the extent to which space could be stretched or compressed. So too would the problem of gravity tend to the other end of the spectrum. If the cosmological constant (lambda) was to be taken at face value (as vacuum energy or pressure that countered gravity) there was no limit to its repulsive potential.

 

Note that a cosmological constant of this type could replace gravity in GR. Imagine a theory of spacetime curvature without gravity. Instead of an apple falling through a curved spacetime continuum emanating from the center of the earth, the apple is pushed from space through curved spacetime. The apparent untenable nature of this hypothesis manifests itself when one looks in vain for a source of repulsion, the mechanism involved.

 

The other limitation of GR (and it’s related to the above) is the lack of a defined mechanism involved in the gravitational interaction. And because of the lack of an explicit mechanism, the long-term stability of bounded self-gravitating systems is unexplainable without the use of artificial initial conditions and a finely tuned centrifugal force. This problem is at least 300 years old. Einstein’s general theory does not resolve the issue. It had been thought long before the outset of GR that the universe is unstable against collapse or expansion, even with lambda. No matter how lambda is tweaked, a pensile never stands on its point, even with the aid of some imponderable agent (today dubbed dark energy).

 

The three Friedmann’s models came as no surprise, not even the one where the finely tuned universe coasts to infinity (where ‘outward’ velocity exactly cancels the ‘inward’ pull gravity. What would come as a surprise to everyone was a fourth unpredicted model, where the expansion picks up speed on its mad race into oblivion.

 

So, what more could be asked of GR, a theory whose only limitations are that it imposes no limitations on curvature, and by implication, on mass-density, energy or pressure (which can all tend to infinity on paper)? Recall Einstein’s words on the subject, ’One may...not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter...’ (Pais, A. 1982). Einstein was convinced that nature would forbid such extremes, but how?

 

For the solution to this dilemma one must turn to low energy interactions. Enter Cold Creation. But this is neither the place, nor the time to elaborate. What can be written here and now is that resolution of the cosmological crisis (the unification problem) is possible without new physics.

 

Coldcreation

[questor]

Hello, i have just joined this group and read a number of the posts. i am not a math major, but i have been schooled in the sciences and scientific principles. it is obvious that members of this group are well read, intelligent and interested in their subject which could be defined simply as ''How Do Things Work''. it seems to me that at this point in time, the answer is simply ''We Don't Know''. if one accepts superstring theory, the vibrating strings

of energy lie at the bottom of the pile. the question might then become ''who ( what)

created or designed these strings and what is the source of their energy and does the energy dissipate, and over what time period""

my question is this--what is at the bottom of the pile?

consider the life force itself. what is it? does it have mass? does it have direction? can it be

measured? does it have electric potential? is this not the most sophisticated force in the universe since it energizes and motivates the most sophisticated organism in the universe

as we know it? is it not highly probable or even self evident that some superior agent created whatever exists at the bottom of the pile and is resposible for the continuum of events in the universe? if not-this means that this finely balanced system that man cannot understand just happened for no reason at all. if there was a superior agent at work, would we not call it the Creator? could we also call it God? this is not to say there is an elderly man in a white robe with a staff and angels around him, but i think that one must

admit there was a creator and God could be the unknown force at the bottom of the pile

this is certainly as easy to imagine as some of the theories extant today of which there

is no proof. Questor

[coldcreation]

the unknown force at the bottom of the pile... there is no proof. Questor

 

I think you're in the wrong thread questor. This one has to do with physics, laws of nature, physical evidence, observable phenomena, theories that can be proved or disproved. It sounds like you're more interested in propagating myth.

[coldcreation]

Only two possible mechanisms for this phenomenon are known. One is gravitational, requiring an enormous mass for the star that emits the light. In this case, stars of differing mass would exhibit differing degrees of redshift.

 

The other mechanism is the Doppler effect. We know this is the true cause of the Hubble red shift because the shift is proportional to the distance (from us) of the galaxies emitting the light. The effect is far too general and all-embracing (too "global," in the parlance of physics) to allow for "local" effects such as space debris - which couldn't really explain it anyway.

 

Tom Palmer

 

Hello Tom Palmer, welcome,

 

I couldn’t help noticing a couple of phrases you wrote about the cosmological redshift: “Only two possible mechanisms for this phenomenon are known. One is gravitational, requiring an enormous mass for the star that emits the light. In this case, stars of differing mass would exhibit differing degrees of redshift.”

 

And, “The other mechanism is the Doppler effect. We know this is the true cause of the Hubble red shift because the shift is proportional to the distance (from us) of the galaxies emitting the light. The effect is far too general and all-embracing...to allow for "local" effects such as space debris - which couldn't really explain it anyway.”

 

You are correct about gravitational redshift. But you are referring to intrinsic gravitational redshift caused by the mass of individual stars (galaxies could be included too, in which case the central massive core has greater redshift than the outer edges). There are also intrinsic Doppler effects causing blueshift and redshift when object move toward or away from our restframe.

 

The problem arises when you write about the Doppler effect “We know this is the true...”

 

The fact is, it is not known to be true. The Doppler interpretation has many difficulties: quasars do not fit in, there are many objects that have luminous connecting bridges yet show very different redshifts, supernovae type Ia fit in only if expansion is accelerating (introducing the ugly concept of dark energy), not to mention that this interpretation leads to an initial event where all the laws of nature break down.

 

My point is that there is a third possibility, related to the intrinsic gravitational effect. It is the global spacetime curvature redshift interpretation.

 

In 1977, G. F. R. Ellis inscribed a seminal, but virtually unknown paper, titled Is the Universe Expanding? Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary. He adds that for this model to be viable “it is essential that local thermodynamic nonequilibrium processes be able to take place continually.” The key idea is that “there could be a continual circulation of matter taking place,” in this case it is possible to have nonequilibrium processes in a static universe.

 

There is a close analogy between the Friedmann models and the model proposed by Ellis, but the differences are astounding. What was previously ascribed to a time variation in an expanding frame is now ascribed to a spatial variation in properties of a static universe, as we observe the past light cone (in the look-back time). Herman Weyl had considered this possibility in 1921, when he still sought a middle ground between the Einstein and de Sitter models. Ellis urges “a closer investigation of the field equations and astrophysical aspects of these models” and considers that the interpretation of an expanding universe (an idea that was first put forth by de Sitter) “is based on the assumption of spatial homogeneity, which is made on philosophical rather than observational grounds.”

 

He also adds (in a manuscript note) that it is difficult to fit the mass-redshift observations well within a static universe. Meaning that there does not appear to be enough mass m in the universe to attribute the redshift z to a gravitational effect, and so considers this evidence against the stationary models. But at the same time, Ellis questions whether with a more detailed investigation, one could fit the mass-z relations accurately with observation, so that the results obtained are not implausible. (See Ellis, G.F.R. 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94).

 

Note that there are several attractive features of a universe where redshift is a cosmological spacetime curvature effect. These features are lacking (and in fact detrimental) in the Doppler redshift model. Explicitly, there is no horizon problem, or flatness problem. Implicitly, there is no galaxy problem, monopole problem, antimatter problem, entropy problem, age problem or singularity problem.

 

Whereas the Doppler interpretation model is governed by Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, the cosmological redshift zgrav is entirely based on Einstein’s general principle of relativity in a non-Euclidean continuum with a very specific value for the cosmological constant.

 

This possibility needs to be explored further. The mathematics of mass-energy density vs. redshift as a metric function of the manifold needs to be calculated. A solution for missing mass too needs to be found for the zgrav interpretation.

 

Note that the zgrav effect requires a loss of energy independent of the wavelength, in accord with observations showing wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum. This is the only interpretation besides the Doppler effect that has energy loss with such a constant fractional wavelength shift. Certainly there are intrinsic motion shifts and intrinsic gravitational shifts in the mix.

 

So this interpretation is not pitted against Halton Arp’s discoveries of discordant redshifts.

 

The deviation from linearity observed in the spectrum of distant supernovae Type Ia is evidence of hyperbolic curvature (not accelerated expansion). With a Doppler interpretation, distant supernovae and their host galaxies appear to be receding slower than permitted by Hubble’s Law. Unexpected dimness of early supernovae gives the impression they are further away than their redshifts indicate, altering the predicted structure of the cosmos. The large shells of radiation and material emitted by distant supernovae appear to have a greater area than they would in a topologically flat space, making the source look very faint.

 

What we have is general relativistic spacetime dilation increasing with distance from the observer.

 

One of these interpretations is likely wrong (unless both effects are superimposed). The choice today cannot be made with certainty. More investigation into the relativistic possibility is required before a decision can be made. My personal choice, though possibly premature, and perhaps biased, is in favor of the curvature approach, for the reasons mentioned above (the problems of modern cosmology are simply not there), and because it is founded on a theory (general relativity) that has passed every test (except for the gravitational wave prediction), rather than on two classical theories (Newton’s, or special relativity) that are known to be limited or special cases of the general theory. GR should be used in global considerations where distances are large, light speed is great and mass-energy density of huge portions of space is large.

 

ColdCreation

[questor]

coldcreation, i would like to find a site which could explain the basic components of the universe down to the smallest particle of energy or matter

and such things as gravity and life itself. perhaps you have the answer as to what a thought is or the force that gives life to animate beings. as my name implies, i am looking for answers and perhaps you are not interested in these questions.

[coldcreation]

Ok questor then you're in the right place. You mentioned the G-word so often you sounded like Hawking. You could have been preaching on Radio Vatican it would have fit in perfectly. Do you have any solutions for your existential queries? Or do you seek answers?