An excerpt from physicist Lawrence M. Krauss's new book explains why we are not the center of the universe
Image: COURTESY OF SIMON & SCHUSTER
Editors' note (May 9, 2012): The rights to the excerpt of theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss's new book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (Free Press, 2012), have expired. The book is available from a number of online retailers, including Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Indiebound, Books a Million, and Apple iBooks.
See what we're tweeting about
DNLee5 Suddenly feeling warm. Why? My fan isn't working. Look up, the powerlight to water heater is off. Another blackout #dispatchesDNLee
sciencegoddess So many exciting space events! May 31, a giant asteroid will be flying by Earth. http://t.co/cyokKwOJhy DNLee5 you look awesome!! :) @SuzieZUMO @arikia @maggiekb1
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
85 Comments
Add CommentOf course, the Doppler effect applies whether it is the wave source or the wave detector that are moving: the sound of a stationary car's horn also changes pitch as an observer approaches, then recedes away from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot only are all distant galaxies receding away from us, but we are also receding away from them! The redshift of distant light only indicates that the distance between the light emission source and the detector (us) has increased, overall, as the light traversed the gap in between.
It can also be said that our own galaxy has been receding away from the emission sources of all observed distant radiation...
I think what said the scientists of the time wherein Einstein announced his theories on relativity! And I am really surprised thinking the emotion of the greatest scientist when was told in Paradise on Lory's Experinent, which demonstrates, by clinal way, synchronicity and simultaneicity of two events. Einstein, a scientist who ignored the non local realm since he knew only two energy forms (EM and EV)ignoring EI, the fundamental form which came for the Big-Bang, namely Energy Information. In addition, Einstein, although father of relativism, overlooked it when covered his face with the mask of theologian to repeat inversely the error of those theologians, who with the mask of scientist, stated that the Earth is in the centre, without moving itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Scientific American for this very interesting excerpt from physicist Lawrence M. Krauss's new book, said to explain why we are NOT the center of the universe...Only to conclude with the statement -"it seems obvious what this implies: We are the center of the universe!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs some friends suggest, I need to be reminded on a daily basis that this is not the case. Rather, it was consistent with precisely the relationship that Lemaître had predicted. Our universe is indeed expanding."
No doubt I need do more reading in order to understand a concept so Ultimately Grandiose. However at this point the more I read it seems I become more Confused.
Did the excerpt even touch on the Idea of "A Universe from Nothing"?
I am curious how the law of conservation of energy has been disproven with regard to the whole set (universe)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am curious how the law of conservation of energy has been disproven with regard to the whole set (universe)?"
--------------------------------------
Postmodern Platonists do it by waving their hands.
Piece of cake.
And untestable, so no danger of exposed delusions.
The best book I have read this year and complements Hawking`s latest. This was an excellent excerpt illustrating how Georges Lemaître`s theory isolated himself from the church because he did not relate the Big Bang to a supernatural occurrence. Lawrence Krauss` humour,creativity and ability to communicate complex theories so even the beginner can understand provides an amazing experience. The initial mistake of Einstein and the cosmological constant, which begins the excerpt, is a cliffhanger if you are not aware of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's an interview with Krauss (not about this book), available for free download at Brains Matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.brainsmatter.com/?p=382
Krauss is profound even when rambling.
"Namely, galaxies that are ever more distant are moving away from us with faster velocities!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is something that always bugged me about the accelerating universe idea. The more distant a galaxy is, the more time has elapsed since the light we're seeing today left that galaxy. Doesn't this mean that the higher speed of the distant galaxies is old news? If the galaxies for which we have older data are moving faster & the ones for which we have more recent data are moving slower, doesn't that mean the expansion of the universe is actually slowing?
On the other hand, if the expansion actually is speeding up, could it be due to the gravitational pull of vast quantities of mass outside our observable universe? (That mass would have to be much greater than what's inside.)Could the singularity that started the Big Bang simply have been a mega-massive black hole inside a much larger universe that hit some sort of "critical mass" and exploded like some unimaginably huge A-bomb? This would explain (a)the accelerating expansion without the need for dark energy, (b) why some galaxies seem to have an anomalous preponderance of old stars (because they're older than the Big Bang)and (c) why some galaxies are on collision courses rather than all flying away from each other (as you would expect if the universe started at a single point and is being expanded by a repulsive force stronger than gravity's attraction).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis picture, I think, a very good illustration of the theory of Einstein and Newton?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut do not just talk about the van der Waals forces.
Notice how the bend before the meeting with a drop of a pen.
Pencil or pen pushes drop. The field drops and pen interaction before the meeting.Photos should be increased.
Bravo!!!!
http://www.livescience.com/18358-water-droplet-world-photography.html
This picture, I think, a very good illustration of the theory of Einstein and Newton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut do not just talk about the van der Waals forces
Notice how the bend before the meeting with a drop of a pen.
Pencil or pen pushes drop. The field drops and pen interaction before the meeting.Photos should be increased.
Bravo!!!!
http://www.livescience.com/18358-water-droplet-world-photography.html
Photographer Captures Worlds in a Drop of Water | Markus Reugels & High-Speed Photography | Water Droplet Photography & Art | LiveScience
German photographer Markus Reugels captures amazing photographs of worlds reflected in droplets of water.
http://www.livescience.com/18358-water-droplet-world-photography.html
Re,: "Namely, galaxies that are ever more distant are moving away from us with faster velocities!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm certainly no authority, but IMO the cosmological redshift of distant galaxies is not so much a measure of their relative velocities as a measure of spacetime expansion imparted to light waves. If redshift is considered to be the physical extension of light's wavelength imparted by the expansion of spacetime rather than a measeure of relative velocities, the increased redshift of distant galaxies is a result of an accumulation of wavelength extension effects.
In this interpretation, the redshift or of light from distant galaxies would then not reflect any instantaneous measure of the relative velocities between a galaxy and ourselves, but the net accumulation of varying amounts of spacetime expansion incurred as the light wave traversed enormous distances over perhaps billions of years.
The accelerating universe was proposed to account for a discrepancy between the distances estimated using what is considered to be the constant peak emission luminosity of type Ia supernovae and the distance predicted by cosmological models based on redshift.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, it has not yet been definitively established that type Ia SNe peak period luminosity is actually constant throughout the history of the universe, as the metalicity of the universe increases with each successive generation of new stars.
At any rate, as I understand the identified discrepancy between distance estimates seemed to occur only for light emitted around 5 billion years ago - there has not been a sufficient survey of SNe at greater distances to confirm the current results.
The proposed acceleration of universal expansion was based on very complex analyses of highly derivative data based on very difficult observations, not just a comparison of redshifts of galaxies at varying distances. That being said, IMHO there is significant potential for error or misinterpretation for analyses of such highly derived data...
Madscientist,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the galaxies for which we have older data are moving faster & the ones for which we have more recent data are moving slower, doesn't that mean the expansion of the universe is actually slowing?"
The problem is that is doesn't slow fast enough, according to theory. Therefore there must be some dark energy being introduced.
Jt,
" the net accumulation of varying amounts of spacetime expansion incurred as the light wave traversed enormous distances over perhaps billions of years."
This would make sense if redshift is due to optical effects, such that the further light travels, the more the prior effect is magnified across subsequent distances. Personally I do think redshift is optical and not due to recession of the sources. For one thing, the theory still assumes a stable speed of light and if the very fabric of spacetime is expanding, wouldn't this seriously affect the speed of light crossing it? Otherwise what dimension does determine the speed of light?
If the effect is magnified, as you mention, then it creates a horizon line, beyond which light is shifted completely off the visible spectrum, but would still be detected in the infrared. I think the Spitzer has found some interesting galaxies there and with the James Webb telescope, will continue to find evidence that will raise serious problems for Big Bang theory.
If I follow you correctly, I think I agree that redshift is an optical effect. I think that the motion of a receding train physically extends the wave length of the sound waves being emitted by its horn. Likewise, I think that the wavelength of light traversing expanding spacetime is physically extended.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I'd suggest that the wavelength of light is independent of its propagation speed, which is constant in a vacuum. As I understand, the wavelength of light indicates its energy level, independent of speed. The expansion of spacetime certainly increases light's eventual traversal distance, and therefore its traversal time to reach an observer, but does not necessarily affect its speed.
I didn't say that cosmological redshift was magnified, but that the effect accumulates over time & distance. As I understand, the CMB radiation is thought to have been originally emitted as thermal radiation in the infrared range of the spectrum and has been redshifted into the microwave range (no pun intended).
Galactic objects emit light in many spectral ranges, including x-ray and infrared. I can't evaluate how much visible light emissions might be redshifted, but as I understand, the redshift of the CMB (whatever that might be) would constrain the maximum cosmological redshift that could be imparted to any observed light.
These are my personal interpretations which may or may not be consistent with those of physicists...
Jt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to theory and measurements by Cobe and WMAP, the contraction of gravity and the expansion of space are inversely proportional, causing space to appear flat. Galaxies are not just points in space. As gravity wells, they are contracting space. So if space is expanding between galaxies, at the same rate it is falling into them, where is the additional expansion for the universe as a whole to expand?
Think in terms of walking up a down escalator. The floors are not actually moving apart, even if the distance grows. Gravity bends the path of the light, it doesn't actually move the source, so maybe the opposite effect is something similar.
Presumably if the universe were to double in size, two galaxies x lightyears apart would then be 2x lightyears apart. That's not expanding space, that's an increasing amount of stable space. The reason it's supposed to be expanding space and not just an increasing volume of stable space is because we would have to be at the center of the universe, if it was just volume.
So the question is how can the measure of space increase, even if the points are not actually moving apart? Gravity is the contraction of space because mass points fall together. Quanta of light are treated as a dimensionless points, because they are detected as such, but light is massless. What holds it together in intergalactic space? Couldn't photons expand, just as light does? Then, like bosons, be overlayed with masses of photons, such that it travels wholistically. Then when it is detected, the received photons are a sample of the front of this light, not quanta that have traveled distinctly for billions of lightyears. so the light detected is holographic and stretched, not just pixelated.
Some links:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
I'm afraid I don't follow you very well. Can you cite some reference supporting the assertion that "space is expanding between galaxies, at the same rate it is falling into them?" To my knowledge no such relationship has been established.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding "when it is detected, the received photons are a sample of the front of this light, not quanta that have traveled distinctly for billions of lightyears", keep in mind that light is not continuously emitted by observed objects: it is emitted for discrete durations. For example, the light from supernovae, pulsars and gamma-ray bursts are all of relatively short duration. Moreover, light received from distant objects is greatly dispersed, such that only discrete wave packets are detected as photons that arrive quite intermittently. The Hubble Deep Field series of observations collected individual photons over more than a week to produce meaningful images of very distant galaxies.
Your links were interesting, thanks, but I'm not sure how directly they apply. FYI - you might find the comment I posted to your referenced American Scientist article regarding dark matter (my favorite subject) interesting...
Read balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path producing dark energy or ether at common boundary by annihilation and injected into our universe in non isotropic form etc etc
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt means there is an 'observable' universe (think of two galaxies at opposite ends of an expanding universe moving away from each other at 1/2 C, each); the wavelength of light is then flat; i.e. is the horizon of the 'observable' universe. For all we know, inflation may still be going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually they haven't disproven any such thing. The latest data points to the Universe having a "flat" four-dimensional geometry, which implies that its NET energy, overall is...zero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually they haven't disproven any such thing. The latest data points to the Universe having a "flat" four-dimensional geometry, which implies that its NET energy, overall is...zero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have three comments from a philosophical point of view:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1)What is a scientific proof and how does it apply to the so-called big bang?
2)If space is really expanding everywhere, it must also be expanding here on this earth and in our planetary system as well as in every other galaxy in the universe and also within the confines of atomic matter. The consequence of all this expansion when measuring distances should be a static universe. Something seems to be contradictory.
3)Why should there be physical laws, especially in a non-teleological universe?
The physics we expostulate today (expanding universe, big bang, ...) best fits what we "know", of course. But has what we "know" been the same for billions of years at all places in our universe? We cannot know. Some scientists speculate that many scientific "constants" actually have varied in time and/or space. If the speed of light has varied, or, if there is some as yet undiscovered cause for slowing the speed of light, there might not be an expanding universe, nor a big bang. These possibilities are more satisfying to me than the big bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are indeed the very center of the universe. The only limit of the universe is not a spatial dimension, but rather is the present time. Since the present time belongs exclusively to each observer in particular, absolutely all that he observes in the universe exists necessarily for him in his past. The farther the object is away from him in space, the farther it will exist in time. Therefore, Hubble´s law, “the faster, the farther,” needs the addition, “the younger”. The youngest would be the Big Bang itself. You may see more in http://metrocosmos.blogspot.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your point 2):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, the only evidence for expanding spacetime is found at very large scales in intergalactic space. As 'brodix' pointed out earlier, galaxies are gravitational wells, locally contracting spacetime.
The universe appears to be expanding overall, but gravitation appears to produce more stable, if not static, conditions within galaxies.
As I have expected an answer such as jtdwyer's consider the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming the universe is expanding and that gravitation is totally cancelling its effects here on earth and maybe also in our planetary system, general relativity becomes a theory that can only be applied to our planetary system, if that, since there are many places within our own planetary system wherein there exist no observations and consequently no indication of any theory satisfying any observations. This conclusion applies to the rest of the universe since we have no observations at all from any place outside of our planetary system. Yes, we have received signals from a satellite that may have passed beyond our sun's influence, but what does this precisely mean. Gravity is still considered a field effect and its influence never ceases. Complicating all observations from outside our planetary system is the fact that our measuring systems and instruments are based and calibrated on actions done here on earth. By what reasoning can we assume these same actions will produce the same effects outside our planetary system. This opens the door to many other explanations about what observations tell us, including the gravitational lens effect which "proves conclusively that general relativity applies to the entire universe".
With all due respect, I am indeed sorry to say, however, that Einstein's relativism is fundamentally flawed, and that no amount of follow up concepts or books is going to to promote wisdom or clarify matters and withstand the test of time on such an unstable groundwork, but bring the whole edifice down on their already cracked foundation - to give rise to an inevitable paradigm shift for the progress of physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth the special and general theories of relativity crucially revolve around the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction factor, which springs from the premise that a moving body contracts only in its direction of motion and that NO contraction takes place along directions transverse (perpendicular) to that line of motion of the body. Einstein uncritically assumed this textbook wisdom (also of his time) – to the detriment now of his life’s work. It is most unfortunate also for the physics world, but no amount of tinkering or patchwork can set right the theories when their very foundation is irreparably cracked.
As such, would the esteemed Dr. Lawrence Krauss, kindly condescend to correct me here or provide me with a simple, substantiated answer to the central question posed in letters to others of his calibre in the world of physics, copies of which letters are readily accessed on:
http://www.sittampalam.net/LateralThoughts.pdf
http://www.sittampalam.net/NobelResponse.pdf
http://www.sittampalam.net/Perimeter.pdf
Let us take heart - the axial age for the final paradigm shift in fundamental physics is close at hand. Do we have the greatness of mind and of heart for the pivotal change? Old notions die hard; but die they must, for the true advancement of science (and of the world at large),fundamental physics being its bedrock!
Thank you.
To even address this and every other cosmic puzzles for that matter, it seems obvious we need a new start or should I say an old new start. Try " The Universe is a disturbed field of pure energy seeking equilibrium"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Big Bang then could become for instance the meeting of two such fields, and the universe is the manifestation of the following disturbances.
We talk easily nowadays about the properties of space, which they say can be bent or twisted etc. according to Einstein, so why not take the next step, call space something else, give us back the Ether to work with, and I guarantee we will find some answers
Nice article...very much enjoyed....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMadScientist72: Your reasoning is brilliant... but I am afraid you are wrong. I think your problem is that this concept is very bad explained in most articles, including wikipedia... The accelerated expansion is not derived from the "increased speed with the distance" relation alone. More important is the fact that far away Supernovas look brighter that they should be for the distance that they are, which can be explained if the space is expanding much faster when the light is near to us than when it was near their origin (accelerated expansion). Here it is a good article about it (one of the few that explain it properly..)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1260506.stm
What if simple gravity explained the expanding universe. What if the big bang threw out all the mass of the universe and it went so far riding the momentum engine and then started slowing down and eventually stopping its motion due to mutual gravity? At this point what if the mutual gravity of the mass at the edge of the event horizon and the mass that had not yet reached that point caused the galaxies, black holes, etc to start coalescing back on itself towards the point where it all started. If this were true, wouldn't we be seeing exactly what we're seeing now. i.e the excelerating expansion of our observable universe. I understand this is ridiculously simplistic but it would be nice to see why it is impossible in terms of today's understanding of astrophysics. If someone would indulge me, it would be much appreciated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbobkmett@msn.com
Personally, I doubt that mass at the periphery of the universe is driving any acceleration of expansion since it would have to have been greatly dispersed as the universe expanded, significantly reducing its gravitational effects at increasing scales and distances. Even if the entire mass of the universe were contained within a spherical shell, for example, its gravitational cohesion would have been much stronger when the universe was smaller.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs 'javiej' alludes to above, observations in the late 1990s seem to indicate that, after decelerating for about 8 billion years, universal expansion began to accelerate about 5 billion years ago. Those researchers had begun their observations expecting to find that expansion was still decelerating as mass and energy were dispersed throughout an ever expanding universe.
While many might disagree with me, I don't think that it is gravitation that would halt expansion, since its effects diminish at larger scales and greater distances between galactic masses. I think that expansion would diminish simply because the total mass-energy of the universe is dispersed and the universe generally cools.
It seems to me that gravitation works to regionalize mass as the expansion of spacetime generally works to increase intergalactic voids. This seems to be generally consistent with the envisioned 'cosmic web' large scale structure of universal mass.
If the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, I suspect it is simply because the effects of gravitation are diminished within the ever increasing intergalactic voids, enabling their accelerating expansion, while the material 'scaffolding' of the 'cosmic web' is increasingly compacted and stretched by surrounding expanding voids.
You stated:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"More important is the fact that far away Supernovas look brighter that they should be for the distance that they are, which can be explained if the space is expanding much faster when the light is near to us than when it was near their origin (accelerated expansion)."
While your point about universal acceleration not being indicated by "increased speed with the distance" is correct, I think your explanation of the type Ia supernovae study results is not quite right.
I think you'll find that the distant (up to around 5 billion light years away) type Ia appeared to be actually dimmer, or farther away, than predicted by cosmological models based on the redshift of their host galaxies' light. This discrepancy did not occur for nearer type Ia supernovae. Relying on the type Ia supernovae's luminosity to be the more reliable indicator of distance, the researchers modified the parameters used in the cosmological models to include a cosmological constant and negative deceleration. Using the new parameters, the cosmological model results agreed with the luminosity based distance estimates.
It is the success using model parameters considered to indicate accelerating expansion that led to the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerating.
I question whether most physicists really believe in their hearts that this whole vast universe once occupied a spacetime volume many orders of magnitude smaller than a single proton. Like Einstein I also doubt that anyone seriously believes in probability waves and he himself also questioned the continuum basis of General Relativity late in life. How can concepts of space and time derived from creation be raised to a priori status to explain creation? Yet this Big Bang theory is generally preached as gospel to a trusting public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlancks universal quantum of action, Louis de Broglies pilot wave and Bohms quantum potential clearly indicate a discontinuous but synchronous universe in which atoms are synchronously projected as a series of still space frames in a cosmic movie. All relative motion derives from relative quantum jumps between space frames which introduces relative space frame skipping consistent with relativity effects. The only action in each still space frame is electromagnetic emission from atomic processes so its speed is universal with respect to each atom. Space and time are thus quantized and derived FROM creation as it is presented to us, they do not DETERMINE their own creation. The latter is bootstrapping logic in the extreme. Science has never properly explored the cosmological implications of a discontinuous universe. The Red Shift derives from relative space frame skipping and can be due to great distance alone associated with galactic stellar reflux over the period the light has taken to reach us. A very different cosmological scenario necessarily emerges.
The universe is in no danger of gravitational collapse because inertial velocity is clearly distinct from gravitational attraction, as evidenced by Foucault’s pendulum and the gyro compass. A spinning top does not fall over. The heavens are governed by cyclic motions that General Relativity cannot explain, hence theories of dark matter etc. are invented to plug the holes.
There is an article on Gravity & Quantum Relativity at http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Gravity.html. Other articles freely available on the website include the basics of how Quantum Mechanics evolved from Atomic Theory, an article on Cosmology, articles on the Cell as it relates to Organs and the Host human being, and articles on Organization Structure.
I intended my comment #34 as a reply to javiej's comment #31. My mistake - sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wholly agree with you. Furthermore, the contraction of Lorentz-FitzGerald, which states that in the same degree as the object that recedes from the observer close to the speed of light becomes shorter to him in their common axis, must be redefined to include that the object’s traverse plane to this axis must become reciprocally lengthened in order to keep symmetry. If this addition is accepted, then all the pieces of the cosmological jigsaw puzzle will fit together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it very confusing that we can have a black hole in the middle of our galaxy with a mass of a few hundred million suns and a diameter of some hundreds of kilometers and yet our entire universe, which is some orders of magnitude more mass than the milky way black hole, could originally have been contained in a much smaller space and yet still have been able to 'escape' in the big bang. Am I justified in making this comparison? Are we living inside a black hole now? If so is there a universal event horizon and is it getting bigger? Did black holes not behave the same way back then as they do now? Can black holes swallow enough dark energy now to repel themselves apart and behave like mini-universes? So many questions! What kind of math do I need to get a better understanding of all this? Any on-line courses?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUniverse-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
A. The Universe
From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, i.e. inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.
The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.
Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.
All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.
B. Earth Life
Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.
The genesis of RNAs genes, life’s primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical thus highly probable, the “naturally-selected” RNA nucleotides. Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.
C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told
The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanics” of the processes.
Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.
Life’s evolution, self-replication:
Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to monocellular to multicellular organisms:
Individual monocells to cooperative monocells communities,“cultures”.
Monocells cultures to neural systems, then to nerved multicellular organisms.
Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/
Jtdwyer said: "..I think your explanation of the type Ia supernovae study results is not quite right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you'll find that the distant (up to around 5 billion light years away) type Ia appeared to be actually dimmer.."
But I think the observations are the opposite, and the farthest supernovas look brighter than expected for their distance (in comparisson with younger (nearer) supernovas. But I prefer to quote the original source that I mentioned (to avoid the photocopy effect). This is Adam Riess, talking about a 10 billion light years Supernova (named 1997ff) that he discovered:
...It appears brighter than it should be and the only way to explain this is with the existence of a mysterious form of "dark energy that pervades the Universe.... "Long ago, when the light left this distant supernova, the Universe appears to have been slowing down due to the mutual tug of all the mass in the Universe," said Riess.
"Billions of years later, when the light left more recent supernovae, the Universe had begun accelerating, stretching the expanse between galaxies and making objects in them appear dimmer."
jevance said "... Can black holes swallow enough dark energy now to repel themselves apart.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does not work in that way. Even if the space occupied by a black hole is also expanding, the black hole matter will remain together due to gravity. The same thing happens with galaxies. The space occupied by the galaxy is also expanding, but gravity keep the stars together, acting like a network of invisible wires between stars. But at bigger distances (between galaxies), the gravity links are too weak and the distance between galaxies will grow.
"A Universe from Nothing" is a theological statement at best and scientifically means nothing. In the beginning, infinite energy sets (or was set) free in a moment, about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe came to be. This explosion of energy is called by physicists "big bang". Though energy contains the code of natural laws, it cannot exist by itself, so it converted itself into mass in the famous equation E = MC2, and also into charges by separation of positive and negative charges. Both states of condensed energy are extraordinarily functional. The immediate interaction of the units of matter in a process generates time and space. Time has to do with the duration of a process and space with its extension. The matter originated in the big bang has been radially expanding since then at the speed of light. This speed is the highest in the interaction of matter. In this viewpoint accelerating expansion is nonsense. The many processes make up the space-time universe. The force of gravity is the product of the mass which moves away from its origin at the speed of light and which is separated from the rest of the mass of the universe, so that the universe is a machine, which, on account of its expansion, generates gravity. And this force along the other three that exist within the atomic structure produces the constant structuring and destructuring of matter, generation and destruction, life and death. But in the course of its existence the universe has been evolving in an ever-increasing complexity of matter, which has been constructed on inclusive scales increasingly multifunctional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last sentence of your Riess quote states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...stretching the expanse between galaxies and making objects in them appear dimmer."
I refer to the preprint archive version of the original research report: Riess et al, (1998), "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant",
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201v1
Its abstract states:
"The distances of the high-redshift SNe Ia are, on average, 10% to 15% farther than expected in a low mass density... Universe without a cosmological constant. Different light curve fitting methods, SN Ia subsamples, and prior constraints unanimously favor eternally expanding models with positive cosmological constant... and a current acceleration of the expansion..."
There are two possibilities for receeding galaxies. Either the galaxies are part of an expanding universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is either expanding carrying the galaxies along with it OR the galaxies are simply falling (accelerating) toward the border of a static universe powered by a fifth force at the border.
The "Laws of Nature" made it possible for the universe to exist - the universe could not exist without them! Where these laws end the universe ends. They had to be in place before the Big Bang could occur. http://novan.com/universe.htm
I remember in Astronomy magazine, years ago, reading an article on this subject. The quote remains with me to this day. "A universe is something that just now and then happens." Not a satisfying response to the origin of everything but one I could understand and believe in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf spacetime is expanding between galaxies why isn't it expanding within galaxies or within the space occupied by atoms? If it was how could the expansion display itself since all would be in proportion? Where is the evidence that such a thing as a spacetime exists independent from matter? There is none whatsoever. It is a mathematical fabrication, what Einstein himself called his "castle in the sky." Why has General Relativity never been reconciled with Quantum Mechanics? Big Bang physics is erected on two incompatible theories. That was the crux of Einsteins objections and why he was ready to discard both theories late in life. Practicing physicists have a vested career interest in perpetuating these fundamental contradictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it a coincidence that the timing of the so-called acceleration of the expansion coincides with the creation of our solar system! In a discontinuous universe distant observations are related to relative synchronous rates of cyclical motions. Before our solar system condensed this could not be the same as after it had assumed its inertial pattern of angular momentum with respect to the distant stars.
See http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Gravity.html.
"If the galaxies for which we have older data are moving faster & the ones for which we have more recent data are moving slower, doesn't that mean the expansion of the universe is actually slowing?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no older data and newer data. When you observe a starlight, they are all real-time data. The light contains information about its origin in space and time.
Its luminosity tells you how far it is and, since light travels at a finite speed, its origin in time. Its redshift tells you it is moving away from you and at what speed.
"1)What is a scientific proof and how does it apply to the so-called big bang?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific proof of a theory is normally understood as agreement between the theory and empirical observations and other established scientific theories.
The accepted empirical evidence for the Big Bang is the microwave background radiation.
"2)If space is really expanding everywhere, it must also be expanding here on this earth and in our planetary system as well as in every other galaxy in the universe and also within the confines of atomic matter. The consequence of all this expansion when measuring distances should be a static universe. Something seems to be contradictory."
The contradiction has been resolved in 1905 by Einstein's special theory of relativity. It demonstrated how to reconcile differences in measurements from different frames of reference.
"3)Why should there be physical laws, especially in a non-teleological universe?"
Physical laws exist regardless whether or not there is a special reason for them to exist. The existence of physical laws is self-evident. The existence of a special reason or purpose is speculative. Therefore, physical laws do not necessarily follow from special reason. The former is a fact, the latter is an argument.
IMO the more logical question is "why should there be a special purpose, especially in a universe with physical laws?"
You asked:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If spacetime is expanding between galaxies why isn't it expanding within galaxies or within the space occupied by atoms?"
Whether spacetime exists as a physical entity or not, the cosmological redshift data supports the conclusion that distances between objects have been increasing since the inception of the universe. There is ample evidence that within galaxies, the motions of objects are constrained by gravitation and do not exhibit the same expansion effects. That is not to say that intragalactic spacetime would be ineffectual.
Personally, I agree that general relativity only describes the effects of gravitation mathematically as changes in abstract dimensional coordinates, without describing any physical entity or process that could produce such changes. I prefer to consider that spacetime contains vacuum energy (which also produce intergalactic expansion), and aggregated mass-energy directionally contracts or compresses it, accelerating material objects imbedded within. In this view, the kinetic vacuum energy of external spacetime, directionally contracted by potential mass energy, 'pushes' material objects.
Sorry, but I don't follow your discussion of how the perceived acceleration of expansion could be related to the presence of the Solar system. As I understand, any gravitational or other interactions between distant galaxies and the Solar system would be negligible if not nonexistent.
Very well put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the statement, "Its luminosity tells you how far it is..." must be highly qualified. The observed apparent luminosity of an object generally cannot be used to determine distance, since the emission (source) luminosity of stars varies depending on their mass and age, for example.
That is why astronomers search for objects that can be used as 'standard candles'. These include Cepheid variable stars, whose pulsation period strongly corresponds to their emission (source) luminosity, and type Ia supernovae, which occur when a white dwarf star accretes enough mass to reach the Chandrasekhar limit of about 1.38 solar masses, thought to produce a constant peak period emission luminosity.
In the case of type Ia supernovae, since their peak period emission luminosity is thought to be constant, its distance can be estimated from its apparent peak period (which occurs for only a very brief period) luminosity. Even then, estimations may be invalid, since the SNe light may have passed through obscuring gas clouds, etc.
"The observed apparent luminosity of an object generally cannot be used to determine distance, since the emission (source) luminosity of stars varies depending on their mass and age, for example."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe observed apparent magnitude is generally used by astronomers to determine distance. From this observation, the radius and mass of the star can be estimated. The age can be estimated using the calculated mass and the observed electromagnetic spectrum of the star.
"Even then, estimations may be invalid, since the SNe light may have passed through obscuring gas clouds, etc."
Interstellar space is mostly empty. Gas clouds have extremely low density. (They are also mostly empty space) For this reason, distance estimates are accepted as valid by astronomers.
I should have stipulated that my comments apply primarily to extragalactic observations. Please refer to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
"A real direct distance measurement of an astronomical object is possible only for those objects that are "close enough" (within about a thousand parsecs) to Earth. The techniques for determining distances to more distant objects are all based on various measured correlations between methods that work at close distances with methods that work at larger distances. Several methods rely on a standard candle, which is an astronomical object that has a known luminosity."
Regarding gas clouds, much of the light from embedded stars are obscured by the gas clouds commonly found in the arms of spiral galaxies. These are often regions of star formation which can only be detected in infrared. In the case of the type Ia SNe studies that led to the accelerating universe, the researchers went to great lengths to eliminate gas clouds as the cause for their dimmer than expected SNe observations (please see my comment #43 reference).
Luminosity distance is also used for extragalactic observations but requires adjustments for redshift, spacetime curvature and time dilation. Redshift is determined from observation. Spacetime curvature and time dilation can be calculated from theory of relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe error from gas clouds can be eliminated to make valid distance estimates.
Ultimately we all strive to visualize our Reality, to hold it in our hands, to know the “Truth”. Those who are able to visualize it, Mathematically, as did Maxwell through his equations describing Electric and Magnetic Fields and as did Einstein with equations describing Gravitational field Theory and its effect on Space-Time, have seen deeper than most, but even they only saw only a fleeting glimpse of it. Now when we are faced with the “wild cards” of Dark Matter and Dark Energy and the unexpected acceleration of the expansion of our Universe, together with the possibility of the variability of established Universal Constants, it is safe to say, “all bets are off”. If the structure of Space-Time itself has undergone an Evolutionary process then without quantifying this Evolution, Universally acceptable, definitive conclusions are impossible. Does the structure of Space-Time have the ability to undergo Metamorphosis and if so has it done so in the Past and is it now in the process of doing so, or will it do so in the future? Or has it always been immutable? Some would say The Big Bang was the ultimate Metamorphosis producing the “Butterfly” we see around us now, from the “Caterpillar” that it once was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps in ten Thousand years from now, if we are still around, the ongoing evolutionary processes will produce a future species of Human capable of understanding and describing the complete life cycle our Butterfly and the Environment that spawned it. In the meantime Philosophers will speculate and Scientists will calculate. Each using the tools of their trade to dissect the poor insect struggling before them. I myself struggle with competing views on the Nature of the Architecture of the insect, but wouldn’t it be a dull subject indeed if it were so easy a thing to correctly catalog. What purpose would we have then? For is it not the hunt that draws us and holds our interest, and not the kill.
Excuse me if for not being convinced by your simple declarations contradicting other sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are excused for your ignorance. Not knowing is forgivable. What is annoying is when those who do not know pretend that they know or perhaps truly believe in their heart that they know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have always asked this same question and have not received an adequate answer... have you? I just assume that the math (or something) is so beyond us laypeople that those astrophysicists in-the-know just don't bother to go into it. However, it seems a logical question, and this writer IS writing for lay people - so why does he not explain??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that big bang never happened. Time is hypothetical and has not got any physical significance. If we replace time by log(time) we get another hypothetical quantity like time. In this case beginning of universe will be at - infinity. By using the exponential function we can again get our time back. We can always do it with infinities. This will also help us use quantum functions at very early times. There may be no limit to universe at smaller level or at higher level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<i>I am curious how the law of conservation of energy has been disproven with regard to the whole set (universe)?</i>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt hasn't. You need to count the potential energy in the universe as negative.
<i>On the other hand, if the expansion actually is speeding up, could it be due to the gravitational pull of vast quantities of mass outside our observable universe? (That mass would have to be much greater than what's inside.)</i>
Yes, and it would have to be perfectly evenly distributed, and it would need to be expanding itself – because gravity can't travel any faster than light! –, and a whole lot of other unparsimonious assumptions.
<i>Could the singularity that started the Big Bang simply have been a mega-massive black hole inside a much larger universe that hit some sort of "critical mass" and exploded like some unimaginably huge A-bomb?</i>
What, if anything, makes you think black holes can do that???
<i>some galaxies seem to have an anomalous preponderance of old stars (because they're older than the Big Bang)</i>
They're not.
<i>and (c) why some galaxies are on collision courses rather than all flying away from each other (as you would expect if the universe started at a single point and is being expanded by a repulsive force stronger than gravity's attraction).</i>
We'd only expect that if galaxies were distributed evenly. They're not. Some are close enough to attract each other by gravity – ours and Andromeda for instance.
<i>I'd suggest that the wavelength of light is independent of its propagation speed, which is constant in a vacuum. As I understand, the wavelength of light indicates its energy level, independent of speed. The expansion of spacetime certainly increases light's eventual traversal distance, and therefore its traversal time to reach an observer, but does not necessarily affect its speed.</i>
You don't suggest that. It's simply a fact.
<i>1)What is a scientific proof</i>
There is no such thing. The best science can do is parsimony.
I'm surprised you, as a philosopher, didn't know that.
<i>2)If space is really expanding everywhere</i>
Only where gravity isn't stronger: between galaxy superclusters.
<i>3)Why should there be physical laws, especially in a non-teleological universe?</i>
Well, why not?
Physical laws are just generalizations about the way nature behaves.
<i>These possibilities are more satisfying to me than the big bang.</i>
But so far they all suffer from a complete lack of evidence.
Stupid character limit combined with stupid pagination! Now I must submit without...
...being able to see if what I just wrote has already been said!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes no HTML work here at all? That, too, is stupid.
>>
What if the big bang threw out all the mass of the universe and it went so far riding the momentum engine and then started slowing down and eventually stopping its motion due to mutual gravity?
<<
The expansion of the universe is _not_ a movement of matter through space. It's an expansion of _space itself_.
And this expansion is not limited to the speed of light.
>>
Are we living inside a black hole now? If so is there a universal event horizon and is it getting bigger?
<<
That's entirely possible, yes.
>>
the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe,
<<
What? _All_ elementary particles, including for instance electrons, lack a detectable size. That's probably why they're elementary.
>>
must be both mass and energy
<<
Mass is a form of energy. Einstein. E = mc².
>>
RNAs genes
<<
That doesn't mean anything.
Really, learn some basic physics and some basic biochemistry.
>>
In the beginning, infinite energy sets (or was set) free in a moment
<<
Infinite? The total energy of the observable universe is zero or close to it. (Remember to count potential energy as negative.)
>>
Where is the evidence that such a thing as a spacetime exists independent from matter?
<<
Plenty. For example, GPS works. If spacetime didn't exist, it'd be off by a few hundred meters.
>>
Even then, estimations may be invalid, since the SNe light may have passed through obscuring gas clouds, etc.
<<
When that happens, you see absorption lines from the gas in the spectrum of the SNe light.
>>
Now when we are faced with the wild cards of Dark Matter and Dark Energy and the unexpected acceleration of the expansion of our Universe, together with the possibility of the variability of established Universal Constants, it is safe to say, all bets are off .
<<
To the contrary.
May I introduce you to <a href="http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm">The Relativity of Wrong</a>.
>>
Ultimately we all strive to visualize our Reality, to hold it in our hands, to know the Truth .
<<
Not quite. Science is the search for falsehood, for all falsehood, so that only reality may be left standing.
If Space is expanding and carrying Matter along with this infers a direct or indirect connection, for want of a better term, between Space and Matter, and we also know that, in some places, The force of Gravity is able to overcome the Expansive force such that Matter does what we expect Matter to do according to the Law of Gravity. This says to me that there must exist a Threshold Point, if only theoretically, at which both forces are in equilibrium and in addition for the case where Gravity wins the fight there are at least two possibilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Matter is being drawn to Matter and such Matter is sliding through expanding Space as any object would through Air or Water or:
2. Space is actually contracting under the force of Gravity on Local Matter. In any event it would appear that there must be a Threshold point where Gravity gives way to the expansive force or conversely the expansive force is able to overcome Gravity. This leads me to wonder if such a threshold point is a fixed Universal point determined solely by Gravity and the Expansive force, or could it be a movable variable entity influenced by other forces, such as Dark Matter Density, Energy Densities, or local Temperatures, or some combination of unknown forces in specific regions of Space.
I would be interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on this subject. Myself I think there may be some merit in establishing and defining such a Threshold Point.
I would be interested in hearing anyone’s thoughts on this Pro or Con.
Being an ignorant layperson myself, I've attempted to explain MadScientist72's misconception of the accelerating universe hypothesis in comments #13 & #14. I'll try again: it is not the increasing redshift of light from more distant objects that supports the acceleration idea - that is essentially an accumulation of spacetime expansion's effect on light as a function of distance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea of an acceleration of spacetime expansion stems from a very complex analysis of cosmological models in relation to observations of type Ia supernovae, whose consistent source luminosity allows their use as 'standard candles' to estimated distance.
The research results do not support a universe that has been accelerating continuously, but one in which the initially high rate of expansion (after a possible brief period of 'inflation') continuously decelerated for the first about 8 billion years, then began to accelerate around 5 billion years ago.
For more information, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
and its references.
Standards candles in astrophysics have fallen off their stands.They can no longer be used to measure cosmic distances as none other than a Nature editor said in summary to a breakthrough empirical finding the prestigious journal reported:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Type 1a supernovae are used as cosmological distance indicators. It is through them that the accelerating expansion of the Universe was detected, and with it the implied existence of dark energy. Their presumed reliability as 'standard candles' stems from the fact they have a fixed amount of fuel and a uniform trigger: they are predicted to explode when the mass of the white dwarf nears 1.4 solar masses, the 'Chandrasekhar' mass. Howell et al. now show that the high-redshift supernova SNLS-03D3bb does not play by these rules: its exceptionally high luminosity and low kinetic energy imply a super-Chandrasekhar mass progenitor. So future cosmological studies may need to consider possible contamination from such events when calculating distances.
For more, please access: http://www.sittampalam.net/Editors.htm and
http://www.sittampalam.net/TheCosmologicalRedshift.htm
Thank you.
Standards candles in astrophysics have fallen off their stands.They can no longer be used to measure cosmic distances as none other than a Nature editor said in summary to a breakthrough empirical finding the prestigious journal reported:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Type 1a supernovae are used as cosmological distance indicators. It is through them that the accelerating expansion of the Universe was detected, and with it the implied existence of dark energy. Their presumed reliability as 'standard candles' stems from the fact they have a fixed amount of fuel and a uniform trigger: they are predicted to explode when the mass of the white dwarf nears 1.4 solar masses, the 'Chandrasekhar' mass. Howell et al. now show that the high-redshift supernova SNLS-03D3bb does not play by these rules: its exceptionally high luminosity and low kinetic energy imply a super-Chandrasekhar mass progenitor. So future cosmological studies may need to consider possible contamination from such events when calculating distances.
For more, please access: http://www.sittampalam.net/Editors.htm and
http://www.sittampalam.net/TheCosmologicalRedshift.htm
Thank you.
SNLS-03D3bb seems to be an exception rather than the rule. I believe the general rule still holds. The scientific community maintains its position on dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Future cosmological studies may need to consider such exception.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4. BaldEgalitarian and 5. rloldershaw: The book should have centered on quantum mechanics [QM] rather than relativity. In QM, it is easy to get something from nothing. Use Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: delta E times delta T is greater than or equal to h bar. Before/outside this universe, time is not defined, so you can get away with anything. Besides, gravity points inward, so gravitational energy is negative, and exactly balances the mass of the universe, not counting dark matter and dark energy. So the universe is still nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to Dr Strangelove Post 48: (see my posts #35 and 46)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecial relativity did not resolve fundamental questions about the Lorentz transformations in different frames of reference and Einsteins interpretation is problematic. Even while denying that there is such a thing as simultaneous events his argument is based on a so-called simultaneous snapshot between different frames of reference. If there is no simultaneous frame of reference there can be no snapshot and if different inertial frames exist in a universal spacetime continuum then atoms themselves must be compressed in the direction of travel and assume shapes that are increasingly flat. This is not consistent with the basics on which atomic theory and QM is based. For a simple and self consistent derivation of the Lorentz Transformations in a discontinuous universe think your way carefully through the article http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Gravity.html. The synchronous discontinuous projection of Atoms requires that there must be Atom frames skipped in the synchronous reference frame of the observer with respect to the relativistic object in the projection of the cosmic movie on a cosmic scale, thus making gross objects appear shorter in the direction of travel. Whole atomic frames are skipped as in a digital universe. No distortions occur at the atomic level.
In response to JT Dwyer Post 49: (see my posts 35 & 46)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe atom frames skipped introduce an accumulation of equivalent quantum energy frames that are timeless in the Void, consistent with E=mc^2. The Void is a quantum energy field that is orthogonal to the integrated fabric of space and time. (It can be known directly in phenomenal experience under special conditions.) JT Dwyer might call this vacuum energy that is somehow contained within the spacetime continuum in some unexplainable way that “pushes” the expansion. But there can never be evidence of this because there is no evidence for a spacetime continuum. It can only be a disembodied idea.
There is evidence for a conjugate quantum energy field that timelessly mirrors and integrates space and time. For example it is necessary to introduce the complex conjugate of the wave function to solve the Schroedinger wave equation. The Wave Function MUST be squared to collapse the wave and get a result. (See the above mentioned article.) The missing mass is accounted for by frame skipping and equivalent accumulation of quantum frame energy. This could be called dark energy. There is no dark matter.
But this does not mean that the universe is expanding or contracting or doing anything specific that can be known on a cosmic scale because there is no continuum that contains it all. The orthogonal Void timelessly spans and integrates the regenerative history of creation (in a discontinuous universe) but it is boundless and without form or boundaries of any kind. The universe of form is synchronously recalled from the Void, still space frame by still space frame such that all relative motion occurs as relative quantum jumps in position between frames. This is why Inertial Velocity is completely distinct from Gravitational Mass. The motion of the Foucault Pendulum and the gyro compass is synchronous with the fixed stars thousands of light years distance and it is completely independent of proximity to the rotating Earth. This undeniable fact cannot be explained by any continuum hypothesis including General Relativity. The Coriolis Effect is related.
In response to JT Dwyer Post 49: (see my posts 35 & 46)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelative cyclic motions must introduce relative space frame skipping in the reference frame of the observer that can accumulate with relative cyclic motions over great distances. This is evidenced by E=mc^2 of the moving body with respect to a relatively stationary observer. On a cosmic scale this means that the light from distant galaxies and stars involves a history of frame skipping and yet the distant star or galaxy has a common synchronous and timeless relationship to the conjugate Void. This relative discrepancy of historic integration via the Void over the time the light has taken to reach us must be manifest in the phenomenal cosmic movie. The relative fame skipping manifests as a lengthening of the wave length of the light spectra of distant stars and galaxies, namely the Red Shift or Doppler Shift. In nearby galaxies the red and blue shifts do indicate relative velocities either toward or away from us for the same reasons but a red shift is introduced in distant galaxies due to distance alone, according to relative rates of stellar reflux associated with the time interval of light transmission. A new cosmology necessarily emerges consistent with the evidence.
This can also affect the relative intensity of Type 1a supernova that are used as standard candles. When our solar system condensed about 5 billion years ago this introduced relative frame skipping with respect to our revolving solar system that did not exist prior. This can account for the hypothetical accelerated expansion in a hypothetical space-time continuum for which there is no evidence. There are also serious objections to the concept of continuous space that were pointed out by Richard Dedekind in his Essays on the Theory of Numbers (available as a free download on the net). The philosophical foundations of physics are critically examined in the article http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Unified_Theories.html. It was published in the ANPA (philosophy of physics) proceedings held at Cambridge UK in 2008. There are only two structurally possible methodologies. The discontinuous methodology embraces the empirical evidence of the continuous methodology but not vice versa.
There are other related effects which current cosmological theories are hard pressed to explain in the early epochs of the so-called Big Bang which find a ready natural explanation in a discontinuous universe.
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Universe from Nothing. To answer this question we must start from basics. Gravity is not gravity, as we understand it. Some thing where two bodies attracts each other dependent on their mass. I do not attract an ant or me Mount Everest but when I fall off my bicycle I am attracted to the center of the earth. Rethinking gravity is partials of energy with orbital character. When such partials combine the orbital nature also combine with a field of influence increase. These gravitational orbital fields of influence keep the Universe together. Looking at things in such a way could explain why nothing came from some thing.
Regards Terence Hale
"If there is no simultaneous frame of reference there can be no snapshot"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's your assumption. Einstein only argued against universal simultaneous events. Not simultaneous frames of reference.
"and if different inertial frames exist in a universal spacetime continuum then atoms themselves must be compressed in the direction of travel and assume shapes that are increasingly flat."
Spacetime gets distorted along with any material in it. No problem with that. Redshift of light of very distant stars is an example of that.
"This is not consistent with the basics on which atomic theory and QM is based."
There is no inconsistency between spacetime distortion and atomic theory and QM. We don't have a unified theory of gravity and QM. But it doesn't mean relativity theory is wrong.
I bet that Einstein is correct and your theory wrong. Ether was disproved by Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. Your mysterious Void is just like ether. It has never been detected in any experiment and unnecessary to explain gravity and atoms.
Reply to Dr. Strangelove Post 71.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are playing with words my friend. Have it your way. If there are no universally simultaneous events there can be no instantaneous snapshot between events.
If the shape of atoms gets distorted the de Broglie waves around each electron orbit cease to satisfy the postulates of Neils Bohr on which atomic theory and QM are based. See http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Atomic_structure.html. You are missing essential points. Take some time to read the links. They provide empirical evidence.
There is no unified theory because Relativity and QM are not compatible. The former is based on continuous structures, the latter on a fundamental discontinuity in space and time consistent with the Planck Universal Quantum of action. QM treats subatomic relativistic events as a probability wave motion. Bohr himself did not believe there was such a thing. It simply provided a paradigm for the practice of experimental physics for which there are many mutually exclusive interpretations. Einstein was ready to discard both theories, indicating that a discontinuous basis to physics was quite possible. He also objected to the divorce between practice and interpretation.
The ether was not disproved by the 1987 experiment. Lorentz first used it to explain the relativistic contractions before Einstein. Einstein’s interpretation was favored because the ether could not be detected. The Void by its nature cannot be physically detected either. (It is accessible in subjective human experience and is related to consciousness.) But the equivalence of accumulated quantum energy frames that mirror skipped space frames account for relativistic events consistent with E=mc^2 and the universality of light speed. Otherwise there is no explanation for these observations. The complex conjugate of the wave function also directly indicates a quantum energy equivalent to matter. Furthermore the electrons jump from orbit to orbit without moving through the space between them. How? Because space and time are a discontinuous series of still frame projections from the Void. Gravity is universally implicit in this primary projection from a unified energy field to separate atoms. My previous link on gravity explains how this must work.
The general theory of relativity is wrong according to Vasily Yanchilin in his book he Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody agrees that near mass the unit of length shrinks and distances become bigger. Einstein thought that the second was slower there while Yanchilin maintains that it runs faster near mass. He bases this on the observation of photons from Mercurius when that planet still is just behind the sun. These photons, although in own geometry following a straight path, follow a parabolic route to the distant observer and so obey to the principle of least action: taking as big steps (oscillations) as possible and a minimum number of these. (Farther away from the sun the frequencies are lower). If Einstein was right those photons would seek to come nearer to the sun, showing a hyperbolic route.
Another mistake of the general theory of relativity concerns red shift of sunlight. It is explained as caused by overcoming the gravitational attraction of the sun and being due to slower second on that star. But not the sum of both is measured. Yanchilin gives better analysis in his excellent book, that is available at the Library of Congress but also can be bought, by googling the author's name, for less than thirty dollars.
Yanchilin sees gravitation as a pure quantummechanical process and note that quantummechanics did not yet exist in the early 20th century: According to the Heisenberg uncertainty one may say that transitions occur from one half of a particle towards the other half. The new theory assumes that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty; so there are less transitions from the half of a particle closest to an external mass towards the more distant half than in the opposite direction. Netto there will be movement of the particle towards the external mass, which in common language is called gravitational attraction.
If no external mass is present there may be balance, I think, and inertial mass is not felt.
To see who is right Yanchilin proposes experiments with atomic clocks at different heights. But the quarks not at rest often are changing the courses of the electrons and time measurement on those clocks is not very precise. May be laser light can be split and sent via high and low track through prisms, enabling to measure different refraction angles as frequencies change with increasing distance to the Earth mass.
According to wikipedia's SN 2003fg entry, at least:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Such an aberrant type Ia supernova could throw distances and other scientific work into doubt; however, the light curve characteristics of SNLS-03D3bb were such that it would never have been mistaken for an ordinary high-redshift Type Ia supernova."
A light curve is a plot luminosity over time. Detailed light curves are necessary to properly identify the apparent (observed) peak period luminosity of type Ia SNe for calibration to the constant peak period emission (source) luminosity of standard M = 1.4 M⊙ type Ia SNe. Distance to the object can then be computed using the inverse square law. Detailed light curve analyses is required in using type Ia SNe to estimate distance, including confirming that the observed object is a qualifying type Ia SN.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNLS-03D3bb
1. In my high school study of Euclid's geometry what most impressed me was the ability to discover so many useful facts by reasoning logically from just a few accepted facts assumed to be true (axioms). I believe that in physics the word "true" is synonymous with "useful".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn physical science and especially in physics we discover and report supposedly useful facts and relationships based on ideas about "time", "space or distance", "particles" and "mass", but these words are not usefully defined anywhere. Are scientists the same as priests of old and modern religions, only telling what is "true" by reasoning from undefined assumed facts?
2. It seems to be universally agreed by today's scientists that the universe is expanding on stellar and galactic scale. Is there any reason to believe that EVERYTHING is not expanding, even on the atomic and subatomic scales? Might all "particles" be moving away from each other, while also expanding within themselves? If so, might this be what we perceive as "gravity"? Without useful definitions of time, distance and space, would there be any way to discover whether this is true? Are most of us still reasoning logically from unknowable mysteries, like those "religious" leaders whose faiths and beliefs are dismissed by "scientists" as without basis in personal observations?
3. I believe today's "science" is today's world "religion" (another undefined word), used to solve real, important problems instead of relying on the old or modern "gods" and faiths? Isn't science accepted by most of us as a "faith", with it own priestly hierarchy and no personally observable basis?
4. Maybe we'd all do better by perceiving and reasoning without using words, as we do when using our bodies. tools and all physical things. (Is that a Zen Buddhist concept?)
5. Useful facts are not necessarily based on assumed truths. Until recently "heat" was believed to be a mysterious fluid, undetectable except by its effects, and in that belief, a French scientist (who?) published equations describing flow of heat through solids (now called "conduction"); these equations are now used by engineers everywhere to accurately compute the rate of heat transfer in houses and industrial facilities. They work even though the belief on which they are based is now known to be wrong. Heat is not a fluid, but the equations are useful; they work. House heating systems are usefully designed using these equations. Just because useful facts and relationships are believed does not prove that their theoretical basis is correct.
Well, we never run out of people claiming Einstein is wrong. It's because they don't understand physics. Those who understand (mostly physicists) don't have that problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour "instantenous snapshot" is simply an event observed from different frames of reference. This is not equivalent to no universal simultaneous event, as you like to believe.
BTW an electron is not like a planet orbiting the sun. An electron orbit is defined by its energy level not by spatial distance.
These elementary mistakes of yours are enough to dismiss your theory and conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.
Dr. Strangelove. Really! Einstein himself doubted that physics could be based on the continuous field concept late in life. It is not MY snapshot. Einstein used that concept to relate two different inertial frames of reference at the same instant to derive the Lorentz transformations without reference to the ether as Lorentz did. I have enormous respect for Einstein. His kind of integrity is sadly lacking these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is abundant evidence that electrons exist as discrete particles. The electron orbits are potential energy levels that define specific distances from the nucleus that are carefully calculated. The jumps between orbits produce spectral lines on which the whole of atomic theory and QM is founded. You need to do some serious homework. You can start with the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series. Now retired for a decade, I have a science degree and have studied science and its philosophical underpinnings in great depth for over 50 years. I have close friends in the science community including practicing physicists. I have no interest in educating you. You must do that for yourself. Good luck!
I generally agree with your perspective. As I understand, general relativity does not describe any physical characteristic properties of spacetime that enable any geometric modifications of its abstract dimensional coordinates to influence the motions of material objects. The description of some physical entity that is represented by those abstract coordinates appears to be missing, despite the usefulness of GR's methods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, regarding your point 2, "Is there any reason to believe that EVERYTHING is not expanding, even on the atomic and subatomic scales?", a more telling question is: is there any evidence supporting or justifying that belief?
There is ample evidence indicating that intergalactic spacetime is expanding, but GR describes gravitation as the local contraction ('curvature') of spacetime, diminishing geometrically as a function of distance. It seems clear that this localized contraction of spacetime in the presence of massive objects would counteract its expansion in the absence of localized potential mass energy.
The main evidence that the hypothetical spacetime continuum of intergalactic space is expanding is the red shift. There are other explanations possible for that and physicists are not in universal agreement. Sir Fred Hoyle who essentially invented the science of astrophysics was a dissenter until his death. (There are alternate explanations possible for the so-called background radiation and other backgrounds.) There are also other dissenters to the expanding red shift theory out there, for example the well known astronomer Halton Arp who produced considerable evidence of connected galaxies in proximity with very different red shifts. He isn’t alone. The most famous dissenter was Einstein. He repeatedly pointed out that singularities are not consistent with the assumptions of GR, including the Big Bang which he considered bizarre. These points are set aside or denied by true Big Bang believers. It is a blind belief that can never be confirmed in experience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore importantly if there is no independent spacetime continuum, for which there is no evidence, then there is nothing distinct from atomic matter to expand. Only if both space and time are quantized with respect to each primary atom of hydrogen can there be a credible universal measure of space and time that can be confirmed in observations, consistent with E=mc^2. The available evidence is given in the spectral lines of hydrogen and the basic postulates of Neil Bohr, for which he had no explanation, stating that some of the classical laws of physics do not apply within the atom. One of the theory’s shortcomings was the fact that the orbital angular momentum in the ground state or first orbit must be zero. This is only possible if the whole atom is discontinuous, such that the electron makes a complete orbital jump in each successive frame that is balanced by Coulombs Law. This allows the primary interval of time to be accurately calculated. The electrons do not in fact move at all, so no energy is radiated away. They jump for frame to frame around specific orbital shells that each have a specific spatial volume. This requires a discontinuous universe which is indicated by the Planck constant, the Planck-Einstein relation and by Louis de Broglies wave equation. Each atom clearly defines a space within it that has nothing to do with gravity so if there is a continuum why then is that space not expanding also? There is no credible answer that can find confirmation in phenomenal experience.
Quantum mechanics was born in conflict a decade after General Relativity had gained wide acceptance. Planck had already pulled the Universal Quantum of Action out of a hat in 1900, calling it an act of desperation. At that time atomic theory had yet to be developed. The idea that the whole known universe (our galaxy) was a discontinuous projection of still atoms that jumped between synchronous projections and that also quantized light transmission by interrupting it, was not something that could reasonably be entertained. Then using a big new telescope Hubble discovered a myriad of other galaxies and with the red shift observation attributed to recessional velocity, the Big Bang hypothesis gained a foothold. The trouble is that one must believe that hundreds of billions of galaxies each with a couple hundred billion suns was all compressed into a spacetime volume about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than a single proton. Some people apparently have no trouble believing that unthinkable conclusion. But men of great scientific stature such as Max Plank, Albert Einstein, Sir Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, David Bohm, Louis de Broglie and others have seen things through clearer eyes. A discontinuous universe looks much more credible now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe formal separation of experimental practice of physics from the interpretation of the empirical evidence introduced the problem. The language of physics has become a meta-language that does not have to be true or relate directly to reality. Hence we have probability waves, infinitesimal strings, parallel universes, dark matter, the Big Bang etc. that can never be observed and yet are given credence.
A quote of Einstein seems especially apt:
“I see on the one hand the totality of sense-experiences, and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions which are laid down in books. The relations between concepts and propositions among themselves and each other are of a logical nature, and the business of logical thinking is strictly limited to the achievement of the connection between concepts and propositions among each other according to firmly laid down rules, which are the concern of logic. The concepts and propositions get “meaning,” viz., “content,” only through their connection with sense-experiences. The connection of the latter with the former is purely intuitive, not itself of a logical nature. The degree of certainty with which this relation, viz., intuitive connection, can be undertaken, and nothing else, differentiates empty fantasy from scientific “truth.”(From "Autobiographical Notes," written at age 67.)
Already in 1922 the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann concluded from Einstein's work that the universe must be dynamic (expanding or contracting). A conclusion that angered Einstein so much that he tried to get Friedmann's articles retracted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, both Friedmann and Lemaître were inspired by Edgar Allan Poe, whose cosmogony 'Eureka' had made a deep impact in Europe. So deep in fact, that it was even officially forbidden in czarist Russia, because of its revolutionary contents. 'Eureka'contains the first coherent descrpition of a 'Big Bang' and a dynamic universe, so Poe's ideas had been studied and discussed in European cultural and literary circles for at least 50 years before they were picked up by science at a time when mankind, after the ravages of World War I and the Spanish Flu, deperately wanted a new earth and a new heaven. Friedmann was a huge fan of Poe, and Lemaître, who had a profound interest in literature, grew up in an environment where Poe was seen as a literary beacon. And although'Eureka' was largely forgotten end neglected in America at that time, it is plausible that the bibliophile and book collector Edwin Hubble knew it too. And recently discovered letters show that Einstein became very upset when he read 'Eureka' in 1940, probably because he understood how simply he could have prevented the biggest blunder of his life!
But the story does not end there, because Poe's genius is once more proved by the fact that his universe is based on the same ideas that make headlines in 'string physics', namely that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature but 'only' a secondary and temporary force that emerges from a deeper interaction between fundamental particles; a force, nevertheless, that acts directly and instantaneously throughout the universe via a non-material force-field.
General Relativity indicates that gravity is transmitted at light speed that should be detectable by extremely sensitive instruments as a wave or ripple in the fabric of the spacetime continuum. Experiments have not yet turned up anything and in my opinion are never likely to demonstrate convincing results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a discontinuous universe neutral Atoms are both separate and distinct in each space frame projection and formlessly unified as coalesced photon energy bundles in a boundless quantum energy field called the Void. These two equivalent aspects of matter-energy are simultaneous because the Void is timeless. Gravity derives from the implicit fact that separate atoms are one and many at the same time. All separate atomic matter seeks unity. Gravity is thus associated with synchronous quantum jumps in position between gravitating bodies everywhere at once with each successive space frame projection. See http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Gravity.html for a more complete analysis of how this works.
Theories based on a priori assumptions and speculative mathematics, however sophisticated, invariably introduce problems that cannot find realistic solutions. In Newton’s world space and time were both conceived of as infinite continuous vessels within which events occurred, so it was understandable that Einstein sought to unite them as a spacetime continuum. Science seeks universal laws that unify all objective experience, even though subjective aspects to experience escape its grasp completely. The spacetime continuum hypothesis also cannot explain certain common phenomena that most people are aware of. Facts are simply ignored or else interpreted according to a preconceived bias implicit in the hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne is irrational numbers that indicate bottomless discontinuities in continuous space such that space appears both continuous and discontinuous at the same time as Richard Dedekind so clearly showed in 1858. Prior to that Bishop Berkeley took issue with the development of calculus questioning whether space and time were infinitely divisible.
Another is related to what Einstein called Mach’s Principle as he interpreted it to suit the assumptions of GR and later questioned. It is generally agreed that General Relativity does not satisfy Machs view that the concept of absolute space in meaningless and all matter is interdependent. GR assumes that gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial acceleration as when a person feels heavier in a rising elevator however an elevator has a local draw works operative in space and time. Gravity is omnipresent. (For more on Mach see http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/mach.pr.html )
Gravity is distinct from Inertial Velocity. The plane of Foucaults pendulum is fixed with respect to the stars thousands of light years distant while the Earth rotates under it. In more familiar words one can readily balance on a moving bicycle but not on one at rest because inertial velocity is distinct from gravity.
This indicates that all atomic matter implicitly has a universal component inconsistent with GR which allows of only local influences. It is consistent with the universally synchronous projection of atoms in a discontinuous universe, frame by frame. Because the heavens are governed by cyclic patterns of relative motion that require relative patterns of frame skipping this contraction of space and time is compensated for by fusion processes in stars and by their rotation and migration patterns. On a cosmic scale a preponderance of synchronicity is maintained consistent with Mach’s view except at galactic centres where frame skipping proceeds to the limit in event horizons or black holes. A new cosmology is necessarily associated as introduced in the link: http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Cosmology.html.
A thought provoking article.How ever so far all research and thinking has been confined to the premise that all Universes or visible matter started with a singel big bang.I think there have been different Big Bangs at different time interval,the starting point of the big bang may not necessarily be the same.Think of a bubble which rises in a pond sending ripples in all directions.When another bubble rises it also sends the ripples in all directions.Now all these ripples are moving away from each other and will do so continously and since space is infinite hence it will keep on moving indefinitely.If every Big Bang is different in its magnitude and intensity so will be the expantion rate.The reason that the galaxies are accelerating could be due to decreasing ability of Dark matter to hold these Galaxies together or it becomes more and more elastic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I have the last word? If the universe is a disturbed field of pure energy seeking equilibrium, then the Big Bang can be replaced with the Big Merging of two fields of pure energy. The resulting chaos eventually organizes itself into matter, while fluid dynamics create the black holes of low pressure, swinging the galaxies around confusing us with the regular fluid energy flow which is the gravity that creates and sustains all matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am and we are the center of our universe (as are "they" of theirs). I can see, and the universe is expanding, equally in all directions away from me/us (at least in the distance). What's a better way to define the center? The fact that I/we are not at the center of mass only means that we can see better by parallax of orbits, mostly to see that there's not much else nearby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, the "world" is mostly flat rectangles connected at right angle. Just look around you.