|
THE ACCELERATION SCENARIO
Jump to part 3 (end)
Return to part 1B (continued)
Back to
part 1A: Graphical Model of the Universe (beginning)
Figure 3 below describes the case wherein the universe is
expanding at an accelerating rate in the present era. Note the Hubble parameter
curve and velocity curve do not intersect t = 1 at the point of intersection of
the H0 data linear regression line and not even at any other
reasonable point. Also, please note there are no multiple points of
intersection. Such intersections with a crucial boundary line constitute
evidence of invariances, symmetries, conservation laws and fundamental
constants.
The acceleration scenario displays much less graphical and somewhat less
mathematical symmetry and does not much illustrate Noether's theorem. Remember
that these equations are semi-theoretical as well as based on phenomenology. So,
being theoretical in part, they should potentially be able to respect Noether's
theorem. The H0 linear regression line in this figure is not included
for the sake of simplicity. Its intersection with the t = 1 line occurs at about
H0 = R = 0.854.
FIGURE 3
SCENARIO 2: THE CASE OF ACCELERATING GROWTH
Change the label of the abscissa to match the
nature of the curve being viewed, all plots being on the same scale.
FIGURE 4
IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACCELERATION
ACCORDING TO COMMONLY ACCEPTED CRITICAL HARD
DATA
AND HUBBLE THEORY
When depicted purely in extensive variables and in natural
units, acceleration must be shown roughly in this way. This picture is an
absolute geometric, logical necessity. Then, if the universe expansion rate is
accelerating and has been doing so for billions of years, we are now receding
from other galaxies faster than the speed of light, note the high slope near t =
1, and H0 is considerably greater than 1.0. It would be around 1.33
for this degree of positive curvature. This is clearly not the case. We would
not even be able to observe the CMB if it was or else the CMB that is observed
is a result of our “catching up” to light that was emitted in the more recent
past. This is so because it is space that is stretching, not actual velocity of
the objects within it. Objects may catch up to light if the space between them,
our instruments, and the photons in question was shrinking. The CMB would then
have to have been egregiously misinterpreted.
Note that H0 must be applied to the absolute
value of the distance between objects, so the net recession rate will not be so
very high near t = 1.
continued in part 3 (end)
Back to part 1B (continued)
Back to
part 1A: Graphical Model of the Universe (BEGINNING)
NEOCOSMOLOGY
A better term for "new cosmology" is "neocosmology" because it is a single word,
has fewer characters, is easy to pronounce or spell and the prefix is well known
-
even to kids. The word should refer to current precision cosmology that updates
the version of older scientific cosmology that was in effect before about 1970.
It is based on instrumental astronomy as a branch of modern physics. The kinds
of instruments used are large telescopes like the upgraded 200 inch Mount
Palomar telescope, the Keck Telescope on Mount Mauna Kea, the Hubble Space
Telescope, spectroscopes like the ones built into Hubble and additional ground
or satellite telescopic light analyzers and other sophisticated, advanced,
electronic computer aided devices.
The main hypotheses of neocosmology, according to the best scientific logic,
must regard quantum science as an integral part of its basic argument. This is
because in order to admit the probability that the universe (U) began 13.72
billion years ago in what is called the Big Bang, it is necessary to build the
argument starting with the premise of its inception as an exceedingly small
quantum particle called an "inflaton". This subnuclear entity, having the
properties of both a wave and a solid particle, requires the invocation of
unique properties of physical quanta of the kind described by Erwin Schroedinger
and other physicists as early as the 1920s. In fact, "quantum mechanics" has
been around for so long that it has become the most thoroughly validated theory
in all of science.
Hypothetically, U began long ago as a quantum wave/particle subject to advanced,
complete relativistic quantum theory with its need to allow four fundamental
forces that can be described as "fields". These are the electromagnetic, weak
nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational fields. Putatively originating as a
quantum object, it would still be a quantum object at the present day.
Therefore, it should still be subject to the same probabilistic or statistical
laws that govern quantum mechanics right now. In order to satisfy requirements
of statistical law which must be based on observation of numerous instances,
there must hypothetically be many more than one U. That is, U must really be
part of a multiverse (M).
There must also be at least the possibility of observing other components of
M,
of observing other universes.
Classical physics would say that observation of other universes is not feasible,
by definition. But, our world is actually a
M that has a
unifying theme. The unifying theme is gravity.
Randall has suggested that leakage of gravity out of our unit of
M
accounts for the fact that this force is the weakest by far of all the
fundamental forces. To where is gravity leaking?
By this hypothesis, there must be dimensional manifolds outside of ours into
which gravity may leak. If gravity can leak out, it can also leak in from this
nether land of
M.
But, it must leak from other units of
M through the
highest stress zones in the overall complex manifold of all fields confined by
our unit. These very high stress zones would likely be galaxies, galactic
clusters and superclusters for only they would have masses and matter/energy
concentrations large enough to show the effect. This is because the leakage
consequences are so subtle. So, offsetting gravity's weakness due to its focused
outbound leakage there is a very diffuse inbound leakage that is discernable
only upon observation of whole galaxies and clusters.
Some of the other units in
M, but only some, are nearly identical
with ours except for the orientation of individual galaxies. They would be
rotated relative to one another and offset slightly according to the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. The diffuse gravitational field coming from these shared
stress zones would be superimposed upon the primary gravitational field of a
galaxy or cluster existing in our unit. This overlap or inter-unit diffusion
field would be smeared out and would necessarily have a much larger extent than
the primary field. So, it would correlate to the MOND constant that is observed
in galaxies and clusters. MOND stands for "modified Newtonian dynamics". Note
that this scenario implies no intrinsic conflict between MOND and relativity
theory.
Thus, in this description, the quantum nature of
M accounts for some
peculiar inferences. One is "dark matter" (DM). It comes from the same kind of
galactic velocity distribution observations that suggest MOND. This DM
alternative to MOND is truly dark because its source must be outside the
boundaries of our unit of
M.
This may be said because the effect is observable only by its impact on the
force of gravity regardless of its source, whether DM or MOND’s add-on to
Newton’s Law. But, it would appear that gravitational effects are the main
unifying thread that ties units of
M together.
As a mere hypothesis, this is very good. It is good because this narrative
paints a picture that is exquisitely simple and beautiful.
The most logical form of neocosmology is also set strongly against the idea of
"dark energy". It contends that the putative expansion of U is decelerating, not
accelerating. Deceleration has heretofore actually been expected, so there is no
new need to postulate dark energy to account for the misinterpretations that
imply anomalous acceleration. The relativistic flatness of U is due to the
quantum geometry of
M that is truly subject to quantum
"mechanics". See http://neocosmology.blogspot.com within Blogger.com for
details.
But, there
is another thing. The quantum nature of our unit of
M means, as a quantum
wave/particle, it would have interference contributions to its overall waveform.
This is necessary for its complete description. In particular, it would have at
least the superposable interference waveforms which we may call A and B. Then,
it would also have superposable interference waveforms -A and -B. The total
number of superposable, potentially overlapping or hybridizable interference and
auto-interference or second order interference wave components would be, at
minimum, A + null, B + null, ‑A + null, ‑B + null, A+A, -A-A, B+B, -B-B, A+B,
A-B, -A+B, and ‑A‑B.
Antimatter should be confined mainly to the negative (-) contributions. This is
why, putatively, there is virtually no long lived antimatter in our unit of
M.
Therefore, since no symmetry breaking within the standard model is implied,
there is less need to invoke M-theory, superstrings or supersymmetry and their
implication of dark energy. Success of this theoretical interpretation would be
actually another natural test of the
M hypothesis as would be the behavior of
gravity according to MOND. It should be unnecessary to invent Baroque versions
of relativity or actually entertain any Rococo form of Newton's Law. The MOND
constant would be explained without recourse to fundamental change, just an
addendum. Relativity would require only an extended footnote. God would remain
on His throne and all should be right with the world.
And, the total mass of the whole of M
would be the sum of the masses of the unit contributions. In order to have a
theoretically flat quantum relativistic geometry that appears truly flat in the
cosmic microwave background (CMB), which would have been emitted under nearly
initial conditions, our domain or unit of
M
would display the equivalent mass of A/[A + B + |- A| + |- B| + (A+A) + |-A-A|
+ (B+B) + |-B-B| + (A+B) + (|-B|+A) + (|-A|+B) + |-A-B|] or 1/[1+1+1+1+ 2 + 2+ 2
+ 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2] = 1/20. So, by this account, the matter/energy that we can
see would be all that there is in our unit of
M,
considering that we are talking about the case where there is not really a
separate contribution from dark matter or dark energy.
So, it is logical that the effective mass of our unit, A, that was operative at
least during and shortly after the Big Bang, should be about 1/20 or 5% of the
mass/energy of the whole of
M. This 5% may be necessary
to display “original”
flatness in the CMB according to calculations of thee components
sof Ω. At the
present time, the interference contributions, the different units of
M,
have possibly diverged in some sense but are still at least gravitationally
superposable and contribute to the inferred total mass/energy as a group.
Apparently, observation implies that flatness may require just a little over 4%
of the total mass being counted as visible matter and energy with the rest
ascribed to dark matter and dark energy. But, we have not even discovered all
the matter/energy that actually exists in our unit, A. For instance, there are
brown dwarf stars, rogue planets, rogue stars and immense dark galaxies
(hydrogen clouds that have not yet condensed into galaxies). These have not yet
been added to the inventory. So, the tally of matter/energy that we can see or
deduce may yet amount to the “correct” inventory of about 5%, if quantum
principles are invoked. But, the meaning here is that dark matter and dark
energy are unnecessary to balance the books if this is a truly quantum universe.
Finally, since we must consider the whole of
M when
inventorying matter and energy and this inventory must include antimatter
components in the various units, the sum of all the matter and energy in
M must be zero.
Therefore, there is no problem in hypothesizing the appearance of the
M
ex nihilo. Conservation of energy is still valid. This constitutes yet
another natural test of the multiverse hypothesis.
It is far too
easy to object to an idea. This takes no intelligence at all. What is more
difficult, requiring real brains, is to suggest a fix for any flaws that are
found. Nearly all ideas offered constructively and in good faith are good ideas.
The challenge is to find a way to make such ideas work. This is the real
demonstration of a high I.Q.
continued in part 3 (end)
Back to part 1B (continued)
Back to
part 1A: Graphical Model of the Universe (BEGINNING)
| 
