Cover Illustration by JE Mullat the BIG BANG and the BIG CRUNCH
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cover Illustration by J. E. Mullat THE BIG BANG AND THE BIG CRUNCH From Public Domain: designed by Luke Mastin OBSERVATIONS THAT SEEM TO CONTRADICT THE BIG BANG MODEL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SUPPORT AN ALTERNATIVE COSMOLOGY Forrest W. Noble, Timothy M. Cooper The Pantheory Research Organization Cerritos, California 90703 USA HUBBLE-INDEPENDENT PROCEDURE CALCULATING DISTANCES TO COSMOLOGICAL OBJECTS Joseph E. Mullat Project and Technical Editor: J. E. Mullat, Copenhagen 2019 ISBN‐13 978‐8740‐40‐411‐1 Private Publishing Platform Byvej 269 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark [email protected] The Postulate COSMOLOGY THAT CONTRADICTS THE BIG BANG THEORY The Standard and The Alternative Cosmological Models, Distances Calculation to Galaxies without Hubble Constant For the alternative cosmological models discussed in the book, distances are calculated for galaxies without using the Hubble constant. This proc‐ ess is mentioned in the second narrative and is described in detail in the third narrative. According to the third narrative, when the energy den‐ sity of space in the universe decreases, and the universe expands, a new space is created by a gravitational transition from dark energy. Although the Universe develops on the basis of this postulate about the appear‐ ance of a new space, it is assumed that matter arises as a result of such a gravitational transition into both new dark space and visible / baryonic matter. It is somewhat unimportant how we describe dark energy, call‐ ing it ether, gravitons, or vice versa, turning ether into dark energy. It should be clear to everyone that this renaming does not change the es‐ sence of this gravitational transition. It should be noted that, unlike all the known geometric models of the Euclidean space of our existence, this gravitational transition of dark energy into matter, respectively, will be a stereographic projection of a three‐dimensional surface of a four‐ dimensional globe. About the Authors Pantheory Research Organization. Forrest Noble Director: Our published research papers to date relate to theoretical cosmology and related theoretical physics. Most of this work promotes alternative explanations and equations contrary to dark energy, dark matter, Inflation and Big Bang cosmology in general. Forrest W. Noble One of Tim’s interests in the contrarian theory herein is that it contradicts major aspects of most theories in modern physics yet it cannot be disproved by observations to date based upon alternative interpretations of them. Tim is a stress engineer in the aerospace industry and has a Master’s degree in Systems Engineering. Timothy M. Cooper Joseph Emmanuel Mullat currently works as Independent Researcher. Joseph does research in Game Theory, Public Economics, Optimal Taxation, Data Analysis and Cosmology. The most recent publication is ʹOn the Possibility of Describing Events in Cosmology at the Scale of Average Relativistic Density of Matterʹ. Joseph E. Mullat Critical Views, credits from Public Domain It seems to me (ie., for the writer of this critical lines, which follows; the source will not be disclo‐ sed, ed.) that Scientists ʺinventʺ some concepts in order to prevent their old ideas becoming unte‐ nable. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ʺinventionstʺ tha highlight the errors in current theory, they just do not really exist, and a modifi‐ cation to current theory is required to ʺfix this upʺ. For instance ʺdark matterʺ is supposed to be 80% of all the matter in the Universe. What it is telling me (author of these current lines, ed.) is current theories of Gravitation and the Big Bang are out by nearly an order of magnitude. You can ʺkeepʺ the current theory only if you ʺbalance the booksʺ using a ʺhuge fudge factorʺ. The real problem is quantum entanglement has not been introduced into theories of cosmology yet and that is where the problem is. Space‐time is not primary to the Universe and it is the pre‐existing geometry that is ʺrealʺ. It illustrates just how little science knows and how reactionary it is to any change. There are plenty of theoretical solutionss to thi problem but the ʺelephant in the roomʺ is there is a reluctance to commit to primary research in the areas that will cause real change because change is going to hurt a large number of established reputations. Therefore the question ʺWhat was first: The Dark or the Visible matterʺ, the answer is there can only be one form of matter. Too many people are wat‐ ching Star Wars and have turned to the ʺDark Sideʺ for answers and are not keeping a weather eye on their instruments. If they finally find ʺthe elephantʺ, they will be attacked and savaged by those who have their pensions to protect. Contents Preface 7 Public Domain: the Big Bang and the big Crunch Introduction 25 The Expanding Universe and the Hubble’s Law 28 Cosmic Background Radiation 33 Dark Matter 36 Cosmic Inflation 41 Timeline of the Big Bang 48 Accelerating Universe and the Dark Energy 53 Antimatter 59 The Big Crunch, the Big Freeze and the Big Rip 62 To fully understand Superstrings and Quantum Gravity 66 Conclusion 73 Support of an Alternative Cosmology Introduction 77 Discussion I 78 Problems 1.1—1.9 79 Summaries of the Above Problems 99 Explaining of the Pan Theory 100 Conclusions 109 References 112 Distances to Cosmological Objects Introduction 115 Preliminaries 122 The Model 127 The ‐equation 140 Results 150 Discussion 160 Concluding remarks 162 Mathematical derivation 164 Appendix 166 References 171 Postscript 177 Name Index 183 Comments edited by J. Mullat & F. Noble “In the beginning, there was nothing. Well, not quite nothing—more of a Nothing with Potential. A nothingness in which packets of energy fleeted in and out of existence, popping into oblivion as quickly as they appeared. One of these fluctuations had just enough energy to take off. It inflated wildly out of control—one moment infinitesimally small, mo‐ ments later light‐years across. All of space and time was created in that instant, and as that energy slowed, it cooled and froze into matter— protons and neutrons and photons. This baby Universe kept expanding, over billions of years, and those particles coalesced into stars and plan‐ ets and eventually humans.” Source unknown PREFACE Cosmological phenomena are not exactly a subject of physical sci‐ ence as many might think. We cannot perform experiments on the Uni‐ verse. In contrast, physics is a science, where researchers can conduct experiments on various natural phenomena that can be reproduced by others in a laboratory. In cosmology, we can only look at the skies and speculate what stands behind the light reaching our telescopes. We can predict the location of planets and stars at closer distances by applying classical Newtonian mechanics, when we use the ordering of the events on the time scale. Still, cosmology relies on numerous pic‐ tures of the Universe, aiming to shed some light on phenomena at far away distances. Of course, researchers can verify the correctness of the mathematical reasoning performed by their colleagues, but this does not bring them closer to the truth hidden in the vast expanses of the Universe. The dark matter is an example of such speculation that is inherent in the study of the Universe. Cosmologists call something that cannot be explained as dark matter, and have even introduced the concept of dark energy. Yet, despite these many assumptions and speculations, cosmol‐ ogy is very interesting and useful, even if it is not an experimental sci‐ 7 Notes from the public domain ence.1 As cosmologists also speculate about the origins of the Universe, they posit existence of some point prior to which neither time nor space existed, and refer to it as singularity problem of time. Space has a den‐ sity of energy which largely determines the dynamics of cosmic objects and the Universe as a whole. Given these many assumptions, it is rea‐ sonable to speculate about the Universe dynamics, as many researchers claim that it is expanding and its density of energy is decreasing. Space and time despite the speculations still are subjects of physical science and are defined in general terms, by presently accepted theory, as fundamental structures for coordinating objects and their states: a relationship system that reflects the coordination of coexisting objects (distance, orientation etc.), together form space, and a relationship sys‐ tem that determines the consistency of successive states or phenomena of flow‐series events, ordering, preferences, etc., together accordingly form time. The space in which we live—the usual three‐dimensional space—is a physical object bounded by a certain set of parameters, the change of which over time is described by dynamic systems. It seems that the mathematical apparatus of dynamic systems is quite sufficient for solving problems associated with the motion of matter in the Universe. Indeed, “Theories in physics are not at all hypotheses, they are not just supported by more or less numerous facts. Theories should have con‐ sistent math, such as topology. If the physical theory does not obey the topol‐ ogy, it is incorrect. Topology lays the foundation for physics, not vice versa,” (Public Domain, Researchgate 2019). However, the theory of space, based on the topological principles of General Relativity (GR), brought problems related to space and time, perhaps, to a dead end, both in cosmic dynamics systems and in the attempts to form a quantum theory of gravity. In such a situation, there naturally arises the need for alter‐ native approaches to the description of reality. Unfortunately, the 1 Disney, M. J., “The Case Against Cosmology,” Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3YB, Wales, UK. 8 Comments edited by J. Mullat & F. Noble choice of alternative paths is somewhat limited, and if such a path is indicated, one must first understand the situation, what it looks like at present, and then try to determine any contradictions between the ob‐ servations and theory.