Saturday, April 18, 2009


The Big Bang & The Expanding Universe

The Hubble Law, also called the Hubble equation describes the relation of the velocity and the distance from the observer of each of many galaxies observed over a wide range by Edwin Hubble, Vesto Slipher, Milton Humason and their associates and successors, and it is the velocity= H x distances or, if v=velocity and s=distances, namely v=Hs in which H is the Hubble Constant - a constant of proportionality.

For each galaxy, the velocity v is calculated from red shift, spectographic observations and from the Doppler effect. The distances from the observer s was determined from the absolute brightness, from the period called Cepheid variables, the Cepheid variable stars were the key instruments in Edwin Hubble’s 1923 conclusion that M31 (Andromeda) was an external galaxy as opposed to a smaller nebula within the Milky Way, from the apparent brightness measurements, and from the Inverse Square Law relating those measurements to distances.

As can be seen from this equation, H has the dimension of time with H- (with minus superscript) and is based on many observations of many galaxies over a wide range of distances and corresponding velocities.

The value of H- is determined as being between the limits of 15 kilometers per second per million light years, and 30 kilometers per second per million light years, or the equivalent limits of 50 kilometers per second per megaparsec and 10 kilometers per megaparsec.

These limits are approximately equivalent to V=1/H having the dimension of time lying between the limits of 10 x 109years and 20 x 109 years and 15 x 109 years that are often being used as acceptable value.

Why is this important?

Because answering this question correctly will help us understand whether there was something before, or whether there was nothing before. If the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light under the influence of Dark Matter that comprises roughly 96% of all space, either way the answer is fascinating, but I don’t think the answer is in the Higgs boson, or in the Higgs field, or in even correctly quantifying and in understanding Dark Matter.

For over a 1,000 years humanity has been stuck on “earth-is-flat” concept until Copernican revolution has changed it, and for nearly 100 years now we have been stuck on Einstein’s quantum mechanics and quantum relativity and both are being seriously questioned although many tenets in Einstein's assertions, as in other theories are still valid and irrefutable.

There are and there will be many more laws for humanity to discover for millions of years that will make our current models, theories and beliefs look as obsolete and silly as Aristotle’s conviction that the heart was the center of cognition, or worse, hence in as much as we would like to connect various string theory variables with contemporary models of reality we also realize that asking those questions over and over again in different context in search for more intelligible answers is crucial to everyone.

The concept of all different galaxies being packed together at infinite density at the same instant, and the subseqeuent “Big Bang”, as well as the concept of “the Age of The Universe” being equal to 1/H, or a fraction of 1/H maybe impossible precisely as the consequence of the Hubble observations and the Hubble Law with respect to the calculation of t=s/v as the same conclusions can be presented in a slightly different way as follows:

"Let the observed galaxy be labeled 1G 2G 3G 4G nG etc. going in order from the distant to the less distant, and let the observed distance for the galaxy 1G be labeled 1s ob, for galaxy 2G let it be 2s ob and the observed galaxy 3G be labeled 3s ob with nG representing nsob so that 1s ob> 2s ob> 3s ob> 4s ob> ns ob and let the corresponding observed velocities be labeled in the same way, e.g. 1v ob for galaxy 1G, 2v ob for galaxy 2G, 3v ob for galaxy 3G, 4vob for galaxy 4G, nv ob for galaxy nG, so that 1v ob>2v ob> 3v ob> 4vob> continue as ns ob, etc."

Thus, every galaxy observed with n meaning unobserved is older that one going back to the moment of s=0 from the point of observation where 1/H, or a fraction of 1/H in the so-called “Age of the Universe” in order of its distance sob as observed over a wide range, could not equal 0 simultaneously for different galaxies, or their precursors, therefore, the Hubble Law even if altered in order to conform to “The Age of the Universe” hypothesis equals 1/H , and even if when the time interval is calculated with the equation of t=s/v is not and cannot be the basis for, and actually contradicts the concept of “The Age of the Universe” equal 1/H, or 2/3 x 1/H scenario.

Likewise, the Hubble Law is not and cannot be the basis for such dependent concepts as a theory, namely that all the galaxies, or their precursors were packed together simultaneously at infinite density in zero volume with s=0 and t=0 for each galaxy, and the ensuing concept of “The Big Bang”.

Moreover, the complicated physics and stages of the first second after “The Big Bang” along with different theories of inflation, specifically the concept of singularity, and the existence of quantum gravity occuring at the instant of “The Big Bang”, the concept of the microwave radiation background observed today as a relic of radiation from the early universe and widely acknowledged as the evidence of “The Big Bang”’, including all the concepts directly dependent on “The Big Bang” theory such as the age of the universe equal 1/H, or a fraction of 1/H combined with Friedman-Robertson-Walker models whether with standard or distorted version of the Hubble Law together, simply do not and cannot compute.

Let’s digress a little bit, namely if we accept some form of “non-local” deterministic reality whereby we assume that some things travel faster than the speed of light, we will be violating Einstein’s special theory of relativity; and Einstein has created this paradox himself by introducing quantum mechanics and special relativity theories together that contradict one another whereby on the quantum level signals do travel faster than the speed of light, and according to "The Big Bang" theory the Universe is expanding at speeds faster than the speed of light, and whereby special theory of relativity expressly prohibits this. So was Einstein wrong? Not necessarily…. In fact, we are simply trying to get beyond Einstein and the inherent paradox in the special relativity theory and quantum mechanics in search of new rules that govern the behavior of matter and energy, hence the subsequent refutation of the Big Bang theory is not a surprise, or exception, and at some point we may have to let go of it as well…

Part II (Continued 05/08/2009) If the Hubble law were not abandoned, as it has been by assuming that v was a constant, and H a variable, and the original Hubble Law v=Hs were followed, with v a variable and H a constant, then calculating t, the time corresponding to the increase of the distance of 0 to s as calculated from equation t=s/v would require t, not only as t=tob and s=sob but all other values of s, except 0 at s=0, t=s/v = 0/0 an indeterminate number we would not have “The Big Bang Theory”.

Morever, the limit of s/v as s and v approach 0 is 1/H, thus by calculating from t= s/v, t would equal 1/H, not only for sob - the observed distance, and vob - the observed distances and velocities of galaxies as they existed in the distant past, but for all other values of s and v, including s=0 for every galaxy. It appears from these equations employing t=s/v as a method for calculating time intervals under the unaltered Hubble Law gives unreasonable and inconclusive results, implying that the method is faulty.

The method to present the reciprocal of the constant H of proportionality, i.e. 1/H having the dimension of time as an actual time span, and the hastily arrived at conclusion that the time interval from 0 to tob corresponding to the distance interval from s=0 to s= sob was given by the equation of t= tob =sob divided by vob=1divided by Ho for each galaxy led to the concept that the age of the Universe equal 1/Ho given the absence of gravity, the concept of the “Big Bang Theory” and to the subsequent theories ensuing therefrom.

To maintain these concepts and at the same time to maintain the appearance of conforming to the Hubble Law as required, as described above the subtle alteration, without being obvious, and without negligently appearing was presented of the Hubble Law except at Vo = Hosob.

Another assumption, or perhaps it was an oversight without any awareness that it was being assumed was that the observed distance sob and the observed velocity vob for each galaxy were existing at the moment when each observation was being made. This assumption is repeated whenever the statement is made that 1/H (“Hubble Time”) or a fraction of 1/H is the “Age of the Universe” from the beginning to the present, and also by the designation of the value of H as determined by the observation of Hubble et al, with Ho defined as “present” value of H.

In actuality, all the observations made by Hubble, Humason and their successors were of the sobs - the observed distance, and vobs - the observed distances and velocities of galaxies as they existed in the distant past, and the time interval to the present being in direct proportion to the sob - the observed distance for each galaxy.

Thus the concept of all the different galaxies being packed together at infinite density at the same instant and the subsequent “Big Bang”, as well as the concept of the Age of the Universe being equal to 1/H or to a fraction of 1/H appears to be impossible as the consequence of Hubble observations and the Hubble Law, even when the Hubble Law is distorted to conform to this result, and even when the calculation of t is made using the equation of t=-s/v, incorrectly, and a distortion by standard cosmology rules, as described above.

Does this mean we never had a "Big Bang" and all known and observable matter did not really come from the "primeval atom"? Can we point-point to the "accounting error" that created the "Big Bang" and is responsible for the creation of all visible matter 13,7 Billion years ago?

Does it mean we are back to "earth-is-flat" concept as we tend to generalize and force all our unanswered questions into "The Big Bang Theory" because there are no better answers, and yet the "Big Bang Theory" looks good, sounds good and has a distinct aura of authority around itself?

Not necessarily..... but scientists and researchers like myself are looking at startling new evidence that is pointing in a different direction. (To be continued - perserverantia omnia vincit... )

NEXT.... Beyond the M-Theory. How do we solve the Expanding Universe, as well as Dark Matter and Dark Energy enigma, as well as Theory of Everything, the dualistic and unpredictable behavior of energy, Higgs Field and relativistic influence of time on its postulated behavior, and the missing components in the Standard Model under these dramatically emerging new views. 10/12/09.

1 comment:


    Concerning the Big Bang and expansion, it is an issue that we cannot detect with the naked eye or even with a telescope, no matter how much we look. Revolving and rotary movements of the bodies we can see – at least in the near space – but we cannot see expansion.

    Instead, some have thought that the best piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang is red shift, which can be observed in distant stars. It has been thought that when the spectrums of light in distant galaxies and stars move towards the red end of the spectrum, this indicates expansion. Red shift values of these celestial bodies should indicate their escape velocity and distance, so that all bodies are drawing away from us at a velocity proportional to their distance.

    However, using the red shift as evidence for expansion is questionable. It arises, for example, from the following factors:

    The light of all stars is not red shifted. The first problem with the red shift is that the light of all stars is not red shifted. For example, the Andromeda Galaxy and certain other galaxies show blue shifted light, which means that they should be approaching us. (It has been estimated that the Andromeda Galaxy is approaching us at 300 kilometres a second! On the other hand, the escape velocity of the Virgin Constellation should be 1,200 km/s and that of Quasar PKS 2000 as much as 274,000 km/s. Where do these more than a hundredfold differences come from, if everything began at the same point?) These kinds of exceptions indicate that there may be some other explanation to the red shift values than drawing away from us. Maybe the values have nothing to do with their movements.

    The values of adjacent galaxies. Another problem with the red shift is that some adjacent galaxies may have completely different red shift values, even though they are in connection with each other and quite close to each other. If the red shift value could be really used to tell the distance, there is no way these galaxies could be close to each other: instead, they should be far away from each other. This indicates that the red shift must be caused by some other facts, such as internal reactions and radiation of stars, which can also be detected from the Earth.

    Because of the same matter some researchers deny the importance of the red shift. They say or doubt it having anything to do with expansion. In fact, the whole Big Bang theory is then without its most important evidence:

    I do not want to imply that everyone is of the same opinion regarding the interpretation of the red shift. We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us; the only issue that is sure is that their spectrums have moved towards red. Famous astronomers doubt whether the red shift has anything to do with the Doppler shifts or with the expansion of space. Halton Arp of the Hale Observatory has emphasized that groups of galaxies can be found in space where some galaxies have quite different red shifts; if these groups are really composed of galaxies that are close to each other, they could hardly move at very different velocities. Furthermore, Maarten Schmidt noticed in 1963 that certain kinds of objects resembling stars had enormously high red shifts, up to more than 300 per cent! If these "quasars" are at the distances that can be deducted from their red shifts, they must radiate an extremely large amount of energy in order to continue being so bright. It is also very difficult to measure the correlation between velocity and distance when the objects are really far away. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The Three First Minutes, p. 40)