A Question of Physics

Aractus 25, November, 2010

Yes, in my first entry I said it’d be a “topic for another day”, and that day has come. I’m felling in a cosmological mood this evening. The theory of the Big Bang was developed after the discovery that the universe is expanding (although this leads to other problems which I’ll raise later). I guess I’m going to discuss the nature of the theory, and all the implications, among other theories of physics. What do we really know about the nature of our universe? Not much.

We seemingly cannot fully understand the mechanics of the universe. Stephen Hawking doesn’t believe it to be possible to create a unified scientific model that incorporates both General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics; although they are both clearly incomplete theories in their present form, and although he seems to favour the m-theory! I find it somewhat disturbing, to say the least, that while physics is considered to be a serious science, physicists continue to assume the correctness of incompatible theories, and believe in such nonsense as the “Big Bang”. Did Hawking’s “god of the gaps” create the Big Bang, and then do nothing (except to fill in the other gaps)? Hawking has changed his mind on this, mind you, he now don’t believe in the most accepted theory of the Big Bang, he thinks that time pre-existed space and matter, and that the universe is completely self-creating. Of course there’s major problems with this, which I’ll get to later.

Accordingly, physicists believe that 10,000,000,001 particles of matter were created to every 10,000,000,000 particles of antimatter. Reason: The universe is filled with matter rather than antimatter! Well isn’t that grand, it’s not logical – but it’s called science nonetheless.

Enter the cosmological constant, which Einstein proposed in 1917 in order to modify GR to accept a static (non-expanding) universe; he later retracted it citing it as his biggest mistake; after the discoveries of galactic redshift made by Edwin Hubble. And we’re going to talk quite a bit about this, because Hubble’s law is, seemingly, fallible. There is now brand new evidence to suggest that there is indeed a cosmological constant.

The quantum field theory of the vacuum state is so out of touch with reality some call it the worst prediction in the history of physics. Is the force cancelled out by Dark Energy? Who knows, who cares, it’s called Science, it isn’t logical, but there it is. One day, maybe, a new theory will come along that finally answers this important question (well, important to physicists anyway).

Destroying a black hole: Physicists believe that after a black hole is created, it will be destroyed when it can’t sustain its consumption of matter/energy. When this happens we are left with nothing. If you’re actually counting, I think we’re up to the third – as yet – unexplainable problem with current cosmological theory, the fourth if you count Hubble’s Law, and the fifth if you count the fact that the age of the universe is calculated on the assumption that our universe is 2% larger than what we know as the “known universe”.

Hawking is sometimes called the most famous scientist that has not won the Nobel Prize. He hasn’t won it because he can’t prove any of his theories; although it’s undeniable that he has had a hugely beneficial role in cosmology, and I have no doubts in time some of his theories will be proven.

Hawking originally believed that information was destroyed in a black hole, Hawking now believes information in a black hole is not lost (although he hasn’t managed to convince all serious physicists on this one). Again, though, if matter is compressed to a singularity, or if we are indeed left with nothing when a black hole is destroyed then its very existence violates several laws of physics. Information is supposed to be impossible to create or destroy. Let me see if I can explain this in a more scientific way: Information at the centre of a black hole is compressed to the Planck density, theoretically the densest possible state of matter. Once an object in this state attracts another object it pops out of existence, because two objects can not occupy the same space. This violates causality.

Hawking’s solution to this little problem is that “Hawking radiation” comes out of a black hole, preserving (seemingly forever) the information that was trapped inside.

In my first blog entry (Islamaphobic), I came down pretty heavily in favour of the antediluvian period. It’s backed up by evidence. There are some 80 different cultures that had flood stories. Yet there isn’t enough water in the planet to submerge the entire world, no, so how did it happen? Yep, “Waterworld” isn’t possible. Quite simply: God made it so; and it was probably only a massive local flood (fully acceptable in the Hebrew Text).

The universe is expanding, about this there is little doubt. If it is expanding it had to have had a beginning, and to have had a beginning it had to have been created. It has to be expanding because it is a necessity of General Relativity because if the universe was rotating and you were to travel in the opposite direction of the universe around its perimeter you would (after a few billion years of travelling) arrive from where you left before you began your journey. Hence Einstein said “well the universe isn’t rotating, it’s expanding”. Of course if that were not the case the universe wouldn’t have a beginning – it would “just be” (Hawking).

The theory of the Big Bang is accepted by mainstream cosmology, despite the fact that it’s a deeply irrational theory with little evidence and major problems. Like the fact that there was an imbalance between the creation of matter and antimatter that allowed “most” of the matter/antimatter in the universe to “cancel each other out”. Causality is violated by that very argument. Physicists can’t decide exactly what happens in a Black Hole; is everything compressed to a singularity? If so it violates causality – Hawking thinks black holes radiate “Hawking Radiation”! The very reason Einstein disliked quantum “uncertainty” was because it violated causality! It’s also illogical: how does a uniform event produce enormous non-uniformities (galaxies)? If it took 4 billion years for life to “evolve” on Earth, how come it only took 14 billion years for the universe to “evolve” into its current state? How does profound disorganization create organization? How does a uniformity produce non-uniformities?

The universe exists to support life, if there was no life within it, and there is no God, then no one would know that it exists, therefore it wouldn’t exist. The universe needs a very specific set of laws to accommodate life, mostly centred on Carbon – H2O is also essential. If the laws of physics had not been designed for life, life would not be possible.

I did make a breakthrough discovery a few months ago surrounding quantum uncertainty, Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics. Not because he called it an incomplete theory, but because he seemed to believe in locality, and only locality. It isn’t surprising that Einstein didn’t believe in QM, after all its framework doesn’t work very well with relativity, whereas the theory of relativity is all about, well, relativity. Always has to be in fierce competition. This is why scientists shouldn’t be historians; they generally care about two very different things.

In the early 90’s the scientific view of the Big Bang shifted, from being the “consensus” to a virtually unanimous view among cosmologists. That doesn’t mean it is unanimous. Halton Arp, for instance, is a cosmologist who continues to deny the Big Bang and proposes alternative theories – by no means does anyone consider him a “crackpot”, his observations are valid but his critics claim he tends to reach circumstantial conclusions, not to mention that his view on how the universe is made up is radically different to mainstream cosmology, so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t believe in the Bang. There are still, supposedly, Big-Bang-compatible alternative theories for his observations (like “coincidental placement” or gravitational lensing) to explain what Arp believes to be galactic redshift anomalies.

I’m actually rather lucky to be writing this at this particular point in time, because this very year a paper was released showing that quasars don’t show time dilation. This was a discovery that shocked cosmologists. There does not appear to be a simple solution that is compatible with current beliefs in cosmetology. Quasars are closer than their redshift implies or, the universe isn’t expanding. Time dilation (a part of the theory of relativity) is experimentally confirmed: objects that are further away appear to move more slowly than those that are closer; it is explained by the fact that the speed of light is a constant.

Another thing I’ve known about for about six years is the quasar in front of NGC 7319. I know the observation is valid, I submit that it could possibly be a distant object that is visible due to the phenomena of gravitational lensing. I think it’s more probable that it is in front of NGC 7319. There are plenty more redshift anomalies which are seemingly incompatible with Hubble’s Law. Cygnus A is another one, and just what the hell is Cygnus A anyway? Cosmologists are certain, absolutely certain that it’s a radio galaxy about 600 million light years away (quite close) – yet no matter how much we try and resolve the region we can’t see a single star in there (only the quasar). How the hell do they even know it’s a galaxy? Simple they guess. Physicists do not know what else it could be so they guess that it’s a galaxy.

The academic view among cosmologists on Quasars has shifted in the last few years and it’s no longer a consensus that they are all far-away objects, thus confirming indeed that their redshift values are not necessarily cosmological in nature. Hubble’s Law isn’t a theory, it’s an accepted law of science. To violate this law is to violate a law of physics. Still the exact nature of quasars is not well understood. Here’s a link on NASA from 12 years ago where it is explained that not all astronomers agree that cosmological redshift applies to quasars.

This event that occurred some 13.7 billion years ago, took place using as yet unknown and unexplainable laws of physics, and created with it the dimensions of time and space, and all the matter and energy contained within. Hawking attests to this. It really is a crackpot theory isn’t it – “the universe assembled itself”. Where did the matter and the energy for the Big Bang come from? From Hawking’s god of the gaps of course! What a theory – God created the universe and then retired!

Now I want to stress this point. Planck Time is the shortest possible length of time in the universe, it’s supposedly the time required for light to travel the distance of a single Planck Length (the shortest possible distance in the universe). The theory of the Big Bang supposedly tells us that at the moment the universe was 1 Planck Time old (10^-43 seconds) it was 10^-32 cubic mm in size. Mind you, this was 13.7 Billion Years of Expansion earlier. This theory is incompatible with accepted physics because: relativity. Relativity tells us that time is relative and we are absolutely certain on this. Once the universe has begun to exist, it is impossible to track it to a distinct static state because objects now exist in their own relative time streams. So for the Big Bang theory to assert that at this moment AND at the moment before it the universe was distinct is clearly wrong.

The Big Bang theory has an expiration date. It is not a theory that will ultimately stand the test of time. It’s the same with QM. I can already show that the quantum uncertainty principle is incorrect. I can’t validate Bell’s inequality; but that’s because I accept that physics is not strictly local, acknowledging this it is still clearly evident that there is order at the quantum level (even though they are influenced by non-locality). Gravity is handled poorly under QM, and this is well known.

Hawking’s idea that time pre-existed space and matter is utterly absurd. Not only would it have no purpose, but it leaves you with the problem that nothing created time, yet supposedly out of time came space and matter! My final thought is on the theory of the Multiverse. Don’t kid yourselves, the failure in fully understanding quantum physics in no way proves that there is in fact a multiverse.

Make a Comment

Hey! Pay Attention: