Red Shift vs CONSERVATION

As is well known, the Big Bang Theory is no friend of the Fifth Assumption of Science, CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).   The BBT, as in all cosmogonies, relies on the opposing assumption, creation, which hypothesizes that some things can be created out of nothing.  Below, Bill Howell describes a 2001 website by creationist Robert V. Gentry that, ironically, uses CONSERVATION to criticize the BBT.  Gentry quotes quite a few experts who point out that the BBT fails to account for the energy lost during the red shifting process (the calculated energy for red light is lower than it is for white light).

Hello Dr. Borchardt-

I stumbled into another anti-BB theory site (http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/index.htm).  I’m still working my way thru the 10 papers it contains and am not sure where it’s all going, but the 2nd one gets into the Doppler-shift v Cosmological expansion issue you’ve mentioned and the 4th paper reminded me of your explanation for the CBE.  Specifically, the excerpts below describe how Hubble & Peebles recognized a problem with cosmological redshifting with respect to the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Seems like your explanation for CBE is a plausible explanation for the loss of energy that redshifting implies.  Anyway, I thought you might be interested.

… in 1936 Hubble wrote [2]:

"Obviously since the product [energy × wavelength ( = Planck's constant × c )] remains constant, redshifts, by increasing wavelengths, must reduce the energy in the quanta. Any plausible interpretation of redshifts must account for the loss of energy."

Just how this loss could be reconciled with energy conservation did not become a major topic in physics in Hubble's time. Nor has it since. Instead big bang's expansion factor a(t) has been ex cathedra granted the extraordinary ability to cause energy to disappear from the universe without providing an explanation as to how this happens. According to Peebles [3]:

"The second confusing point is the nature of the energy balance in the CBR. However, since the volume of the universe varies as a(t)3, the net radiation energy in a closed universe decreases as 1 / a(t) as the universe expands. Where does the lost energy go? . . . The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept, . . . . there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory."

Harrison has likewise granted the same exemption. In his book, in a section titled, "Where has the energy gone?," he states [4]:

"Radiation, freely moving particles, and gases lose energy in an expanding universe. Where does the energy go? We take it for granted that light is redshifted and usually do not concern ourselves about where its energy has gone. . . .

"Science clings tenaciously to concepts of conservation, the most fundamental of which is the conservation-of-energy principle. . . .

"The conservation-of-energy principle serves us well in all sciences except cosmology. . . . To the questions where the energy goes in an expanding universe and where it comes from in a collapsing universe the answer is — nowhere, because in this one case energy is not conserved."

Elementary Particles not Elementary

From Steve Puetz:

Hello Glenn,

I've run into a couple of problems that I have not yet been able to solve.  Both are related to measurements of "elementary" particles.

Of these, the most important are the measurements for the mass of an electron.  Two of the methods involve averaging millions of electrons -- thus, calculating an average -- from bending of electron streams and from Millikan's oil drop experiment.  Hence, these can be dismissed as averages rather than true measurements of a single electron.  The other method is called a Penning Trap.  Supposedly, a single electron can be weighed, and it matches the value from the other methods. The Penning Trap involves a number of events that prepare the electron for measurement, including dropping the temperature to near absolute zero.  The fact that all of these measurements arrive at the same answer is given as proof that electrons are elementary -- they all have exactly the same size and no subcomponents.  This contradicts neomechanics and the Ten Assumptions.

The other problem is with the atomic weights of the various isotopes.  They exist in approximate increments of 1 -- for every isotope.  For example,

Hydrogen-1 ~ 1

Hydrogen-2 ~ 2

Hydrogen-3 ~ 3

Helium-4 ~ 4

Helium-5 ~ 5

etc.

Similar to electrons, this gives the appearance that protons and neutrons are elementary -- each one always has a weight close to 1 atomic unit -- suggesting that they too are elementary.

Have you found any explanation for this?  I don't believe in elementary particles, but the measurements support this idea.

Good question.  I also  agree that there are no elementary particles. The INFINITY chapter in TTAOS and the section on INFINITY in TSW is a good review of the assumption.  One also has to remember that the CW (conventional wisdom) assumes finity, so almost all of their interpretations and statements will have a tendency to “prove” that identities exist.

There are at least 3 different kinds of electrons, so that leads to rejection of the electron as a true elementary particle.  To be different, a microcosm must contain submicrocosms (parts) that are different either quantitatively or qualitatively. Every time we explore a thing in detail, we find that no two of them are identical (a la RELATIVISM).  Nevertheless, nature produces only possible objects; impossible objects cannot exist.  So the ether “dust devils” that produce electrons require perhaps a billion ether particles to form an electron.  If an electron has a billion and one ether particles it still behaves as an electron. We are not able to measure the difference in mass.  The mass of a single electron and the average mass of millions of them could be similar within the +- of the measurement.  One could claim either that the two electrons were identical or that they were not.  No measurement could settle this question.  That is why we need TTAOS.  Ultimately, no experiment can prove INFINITY or finity to be valid.  That is the nature of fundamental assumptions: they cannot be proven and they always have opposites.  An electron with 1.5 billion ether particles probably cannot exist, just like a dust devil or tornado with a 1000-km diameter cannot exist.  It all depends on the univironment.

This question came can up in a different form when I was day-dreaming by the side of one of my favorite Sierra lakes.  In front of me was a 100-ft tall tree.  Why wasn’t it taller? Why couldn’t a tree be a mile high? Of course, the answer was that the univironment would not allow for that possibility.  Even if the tree had a mind and wanted to be a mile high, it could not fight gravity and all the other components of the macrocosm to achieve that goal.  As always, it is the interaction between microcosm and macrocosm that determines what is possible.  Your question is good because it still leaves open the puzzle about why some univironments exist and others do not.  We can never know (UNCERTAINTY) the answer completely, but we always can study existing univironments for clues to their formation.  The general rule is that similar univironments produce similar microcosms.  Thus, all “elementary” particles are like snowflakes.  Each snowflake has some characteristics similar to all other snowflakes and some characteristics dissimilar to all other snowflakes.  We can reduce this infinite variability by absolutizing it to “one” snowflake.  For many purposes, this works fine, especially for anything involving math.  But we should never think that any two things are really identical. 

Univironmental Analysis of Nucleosynthesis

Comments and Questions from Bill Howell:

Hello Dr. Borchardt- 

I finished TSW.  Wow!  It’s amazing to me that any person can write such an extensive treatise.  That some people are able to develop a comprehensive new worldview during a lifetime of observation and study is amazing (and inspiring), but at least I can comprehend that it is possible.  But to depth of your synthesis, the extensive references and background material you cite, and the comprehensiveness of your theory is truly incredible.  Thank you for your efforts.  I wish you success in promulgating your ideas over the next few hundred years.

[Bill, thanks for the kind words.  Glad you got a lot out of TSW. I might need a little help on the next hundred years.  Good thing there are younger folks like yourself around.]

Any new worldview must provide an alternative explanation to the phenomena described by the old worldview.  The Copernican worldview versus the Ptolemaic worldview is a good example.  But to replace it, the new worldview must also be able to explain phenomena that the old worldview can not.  For example, your Assumption of Infinity would explain the “zoo” of subatomic particles that physicists find, and it can explain red-shift problems with the BB model; but as long as instrumentation is unable to peer below the Plank limit or ad-hoc explanations such as an accelerating-universe modification to the inflationary-universe modification of the BB model can be postulated, your theory will only be an alternative explanation to the status quo.  And ideally, a new worldview must be able to predict phenomena that is at variance with the old worldview (and this may not even be enough, as the Eddington eclipse measurement of stellar shift may represent).  I encourage you to think about possible concrete testable predictions. 

For example, the aether experiments are examples of variance with the standard model, but they really only undermine Relativity theory and not the BB model (an old (1978) paper by Richard Muller describing the detection of CBR describes it as the ‘New Aether’).  Your explanation for the CBR provides an alternative explanation for the BB event but doesn’t overthrow the conventional explanation. 

  

[You are right about the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation), which was predicted by the BBT (at 10^oK) and by classical theory (at <5^oK).  The actual temperature was determined to be about 2.7^oK.  If the space between galaxies had been perfectly empty, as proposed by Einstein, then the temperature would have been 0^oK.  Temperature is the vibratory motion of matter, so any temperature at all meant that outer space was filled with matter: ‘New Aether,’ regular old ether, or today’s trendy incantation, “dark matter.”  The CBR case is a neat example of data that can be interpreted in many ways depending on the initial assumptions of the observer.  Thus the BBT folks assume that light is matterless motion (Einstein’s massless photon) and would not agree that the CBR is indicative of the presence of matter.  However, if we assume INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) instead, it becomes clear that Einstein and the BBT cannot be correct. 

You have to realize that relativity and the BBT are intimately related.  The demise of one means the demise of the other.  For example, Einstein’s objectification of motion is absolutely required to make the BBT believable.  Einstein did this in SRT when he treated motion (i.e., time) as a thing.  Once time was a thing, it could expand and contract as a thing.  Time “dilation” became all the rage for indeterminists lurking at every turn.  From there it was no problem to invent “space-time,” a matter-motion term in GRT that became critical to acceptance of the BBT.  The key is to understand that common physical terms such as momentum, force, energy, and space-time are mere calculations.  They are not things or the motions of things.  They are descriptions of matter in motion.  Thus space exists, but space-time does not.  The BBT absolutely requires the opposite, indeterministic interpretation that space-time exists.  Otherwise, how could we be at the center of a finite universe that is 13.7 billion light years in all directions?  With 3 X 10²³ stars observed, how probable is it that we would be in the center?  If there really had been a “Big Bang” we at least would be off to one side, maybe seeing galaxies 9 billion light years in one direction and 18 billion light years in the opposite direction. The UD solution is that this is all a matter of perception in an infinite 3-D universe in which light is absorbed over distance.  Our presently available tools cannot see light that originated more than 13.7 billion light years from us.]  

I’d love to try to help but I don’t have the depth of scientific knowledge (or the depth of understanding about your theory) that you do.  What I might be able to do is help identify concepts that lack a Univironmental alternative explanation, if you’re willing to entertain them. 

One such concept involves nuclear synthesis.  The BB model is cited to explain the formation and the ratios of He⁴ to H that permeate interstellar space.  What I’ve read is that the universe had to briefly pass thru an extremely hot dense phase to create He⁴ from H, and that if this phase had lasted more than minutes in length, the ratio of He⁴ to H would be much larger (as well as having produced some percentage of stable nuclei larger than He⁴). 

[The transformation of H to He⁴ occurs via fusion in stars.  This is a fact.  The BBT stuff regarding the reaction is pure conjecture.]

A Big Bang event with a subsequent inflationary event can explain this (where the expansion of space reduces density/temperature to prevent additional He⁴ from forming).  Yes, it may be ad-hoc, and was probably an empirical basis for the development of the BB model, but it is an explanation.  Given an infinity of time, it is certainly possible for suns to create He⁴ from H, but this wouldn’t seem to explain the wide-ranging ratios of He⁴ to H that are (presumably) observed, or the lack of significant ratios of heavier elements.

 

I know that you are not a nuclear physicist or theorist but, given the depth of your knowledge, I wouldn’t want to presume that this is outside of your area of contemplation.  Do you have an alternate Univironmental explanation?

[The “expansion of space” is not responsible for the presence or absence of He⁴.  In fact, just the opposite is necessary for the formation of helium.  Hydrogen atoms must converge to form helium.  This takes place in stars, such as our sun. The wide-ranging ratios of He⁴ to H are just what we would expect in an infinite universe that has stars of various sizes at various stages of evolution, which we observe.  In later stages, light elements form and in still later stages elements heavier than Fe form when pressures become high enough in the largest stars and neutron star mergers. Cosmogonists like to spread the erroneous assumption those elements form during supernova explosions. However, explosions do not create anything in the same way it is impossible for the entire universe to be created by an explosion.]