North of North Pole Argument of Big Bang Supporters:

Big Bang supports love to argue that time did not exist prior to Big Bang. Their famous argument is that “North of North Pole is meaningless therefore asking what existed prior to Big Bang is also meaningless.”

np

Here we are to analyze this argument without dragging ourselves to ultra deep philosophy. In simple sense, North Pole is not a dead-end where further movement is not even possible. Suppose moving towards North Pole is considered as backward movement in time. At North Pole, we reach to Zero time. Now forward movement is possible. OK we are again moving to South side but not on the same side of globe. We are watching new scenes and facing new events. It is still a forward movement. It was not meaningless to move further from North Pole.

Secondly, North of North Pole is essentially an upward movement beyond the point of actual North Pole. That upward movement shall eventually take us to the equally, or may be less famous, “North Star”.

Within a BIG picture, if we are standing on equator, then our North is pointed towards North Star and South is exact opposite direction. From equator, if we start moving towards North and we adopt a straight line which is not affected by the curvature of globe, then our first destination towards North would be the North Star itself. And that will not be the end of journey towards North.

The argument that “North of North Pole is meaningless” is equally meaningless argument as saying that “Corner of Circle is meaningless”. With a meaningless argument, existence of time before a particular event cannot be denied.

According to the standard Big Bang Model, time before Big Bang was meaningless. Then a meaningless event occurred and everything emerged and all what emerged was expanding like a balloon. And this is known as a serious theory of Modern Physics. I accept that under certain conditions, time can be meaningless but the condition won’t be like that “North of North Pole is meaningless”.

Advertisements

What is source and explanation of CMBR under Non-Expanding Model of Universe?

CMBR is electromagnetic radiation within microwaves zone of the spectrum and coming from all the parts of sky. It is right to think of it as a form of (invisible) light coming from everywhere. Source of CMBR is said to be the state of Universe as it existed some 380,000 years after Big Bang. At that time, according to the Big Bang Model, diameter of Universe was 43 million light years.

This state of Universe is said to emit light for the first time. Originally it was compressed radiation of visible glow. But it is said that Universe was expanding and light was also expanding. That light is now reaching us in expanded (invisible) form and now lies within microwaves zone of spectrum and we call it CMBR.

But that early state of Universe lasted for a maximum period of only 600 million years as after this time, galaxies appeared. It means that source of CMBR lasted for only 600 million years. If we assume or accept a non-expanding universe then we are living in a perfect age where we can observe this radiation.

But Big Bang defenders argue that universe is not static. Universe is expanding faster than speed of light and redshifted light is chasing the Universe. So they conclude that CMBR shall stay for ever.

The point to be considered is that CMBR has been explained only in the expanding Universe context – and that also in such an expanding Universe that is expanding faster than light itself. If these assumptions are not true then Big Bang supporters have no alternative justification for the CMBR.

cmbr

Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

In fact our Universe is static. CMBR is redshifted light of very remote areas of Universe that extends like infinity. It is in accordance with Olbers’ ‘paradox’ which is not a paradox as such. Olbers’ simply did not know Hubble’s law in his time (19th century) so he did not know that light coming from far off distances was to be more redshifted. Exactly in accordance with Olbers’ paradox, our night sky is actually fully bright. But it is bright in redshifted to invisible spectrum zone. That’s why our night sky is not really bright. And this CMBR is actually the proof that we live in an infinite universe. Olber’s ‘paradox’ already contained prediction of CMBR and thus credit of prediction of CMBR does not exclusively belongs to the Big Bang Model. Further details have been explained in the book.

Redshifts observed in far off galaxies are not the proof of Expansion of Universe

Big Bang Cosmologists deceptively tell us that Doppler’s Redshift observed in light coming from far off galaxies is the proof of expansion of universe. The fact is that the redshifts they have so observed are not Doppler’s Shifts at all. That is a different kind of redshift which is called Cosmological Redshift. Given the fact that Cosmological Redshift is different from Doppler’s Redshift, scientists should not use the term Doppler’s Effect within the context of the Big Bang Theory. They know that this is different kind of redshift but they continue to use this irrelevant term in official papers and discussions. By using the term Doppler’s Effect, they deceptively project that the Big Bang Model was developed on solid observational grounds because Doppler’s Effect is the physical proof of receding or approaching velocity of any object. Cosmological Redshift, on the other hand, is not the physical proof of receding of any object.  Though it is possible that recessional movement may occur under cosmological redshift but it is NOT necessary. There may NOT be recessional movement in redshift-distance relationship. For example there is redshift-distant relation in surface water waves and there is no recessional movement of source of waves. Therefore unlike Doppler’s effect, Cosmological Redshift itself is NOT the proof of recessional velocity of anything. It will amount to proof only if it is supported by direct evidence – such as we have 100 years old redshift data of many galaxies. If there is recessional velocity going on then those galaxies are now at greater distance and there should be greater value of redshift for those galaxies. But all values are same. Big Bang supports say that 100 years are not enough to notice any difference in value. I say ok … lets say few thousand years are enough … but it means that NOW you are without proof … You can acquire proof only after few thousand years … Right now you are without proof. The only ‘proof’ that you tell us is a ‘mathematical proof’ rather than a physical proof. And that ‘mathematical proof’ is also dubious mathematics which is based on manipulated translation.

Doppler’s Shift (redshift) is observed if something is physically moving away from us. Let’s say a far off galaxy is physically moving away from us. The light emitted by the galaxy, right from start, will be redshifted to the full value. With Doppler’s Shift, we get a physical proof that yes the galaxy is physically moving away from us. Doppler’s Effect is essentially redshiftspeed relationship. In contrast to this, Cosmological Redshift is redshiftdistance relationship. Let’s say an object at near location is moving away with speed 100; at farther distance, speed shall again be 100. At both near and far distance, the Doppler’s Redshift value shall remain the same due to the fact that speed was same. However Cosmological Redshift value shall be different for both the locations because distance is not the same.

(Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech — taken from this site.)

Please see in this video that due to recessional or approaching velocity of light source, the wavelength is modified exactly at the time of departure. The same modified wavelength, without further alterations is then reached at the receiving point. In Doppler’s redshift, wavelength of light does not increase during the journey of light.

Whereas in ‘Cosmological Redshift’, the far off galaxy is physically NOT moving away from us and normal light is emitted by that galaxy. But during long journey of light, wavelength of light keeps on increasing. The larger distance is covered, the wavelength has become larger. It means if larger distance is covered, the greater redshift is observed at the receiving end. Exact this thing was noted by Edwin Hubble and finally scientists realized that what redshifts they had been observing since second decade of twentieth century were not Doppler’s Shifts but were Cosmological Redshifts.

water waves

(Credit: Image permitted to be used by Jesse Witwer)

Above image of surface water waves is the perfect example of linear relationship between wavelength (redshift) and distance. Hubble actually did not say in year 1929 that Universe is Expanding and his actual finding was simply the linear redshift-distance relationship whose perfect example is above depicted wavelength (redshift) – distance relationship of surface water waves.

Since Cosmological Redshift is not the physical proof of receding of galaxies, so Expansionists now say that it is ‘space’ which is expanding. What is the proof of ‘expansion of space’? The proof is only mathematics – i.e. dubious FLRW metric.

Simple finding of Hubble was that “there is linear relation between redshift and distance”.

FLRW only adds an unnecessary bracket and wants us to read Hubble’s simple finding as “there is linear relation between redshift and (increasing) distance.”

‘Increasing distance’ means expansion of space is going on and proof of this (increasing) bracket is FLRW metric itself.

How idea of The Big Bang Initial Singularity Emerged?

In Modern Physics, there are two distinct forms of singularities which are (i) Black Hole Singularity and; (ii) Big Bang Initial Singularity. These so called ‘counter intuitive’ notions or concepts of ‘singularity’ are results of mistakes and misunderstandings rather than actual result taken from equations of mathematics. Development of scientific ideas is not outside the regime of epistemological principles. Scientific Knowledge is also evolved as progression of ideas. Ridiculous, non-sense or ‘counter intuitive’ ideas usually come from mistakes and not from genuine observations, deductions, inferences or mathematical derivations.

Ideas of above two kinds of ‘singularities’ are not older than early twentieth century though concept of ‘Black Holes’ can be traced to as early time as year 1783 when John Michell[i] first time pointed out the possibility of massive stars who could be able to trap light. He even provided the method to indirectly identify the presence of such ‘dark stars’ through the type of orbital motion of other visible stars in particular locality. Thanks to John Michell, he introduced genuinely possible concept of ‘black holes’ that was not based on ridiculous idea of ‘singularity’. The ‘super massive black holes’ that are now supposed to exist at center of galaxies are actually this type of non-singularity black holes. According to John Michell such ‘dark stars’ could have diameter as large as 500 times that of Sun. Therefore we see that original concept of black holes did not involve concept of singularities.

Following is a relevant quote from Wikipedia article on John Michell.

It was Michell who, in a paper for the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, read on 27 November 1783, first proposed the idea that there were such things as black holes, which he called “dark stars”. Having accepted Newton’s corpuscular theory of light, which posited that light consists of minuscule particles, he reasoned that such particles, when emanated by a star, would be slowed down by its gravitational pull, and thought that it might therefore be possible to determine the star’s mass based on the reduction in speed. This insight led in turn to the recognition that a star’s gravitational pull might be so strong that the escape velocity would exceed the speed of light. Michell calculated that this would be the case with a star more than 500 times the size of the Sun. Since light would not be able to escape such a star, it would be invisible. In his own words:

If there should really exist in nature any bodies, whose density is not less than that of the sun, and whose diameters are more than 500 times the diameter of the sun, since their light could not arrive at us; or if there should exist any other bodies of a somewhat smaller size, which are not naturally luminous; of the existence of bodies under either of these circumstances, we could have no information from sight; yet, if any other luminous bodies should happen to revolve about them we might still perhaps from the motions of these revolving bodies infer the existence of the central ones with some degree of probability, as this might afford a clue to some of the apparent irregularities of the revolving bodies, which would not be easily explicable on any other hypothesis; but as the consequences of such a supposition are very obvious, and the consideration of them somewhat beside my present purpose, I shall not prosecute them any further.

— John Michell, 1784[13]

Then comes the twentieth century where Einstein induced new spirit to mathematicians by giving them opportunity to find ‘solutions’ to his General Relativity equations. One early solution that emerged was by K. Schwarzschild[ii] whose work has now become basis of all the singularity based black hole physics.

The English translation title of his 1916 paper is “On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point according to Einstein’s Theory”. The paper itself is too complicated to offer solid and consistent sense. But title of the paper is simple. It is talking about ‘Mass Point’ and the first impression that at least I get is that he is going to discuss gravity field in abstract mathematical terms. From the title, I am not getting the impression that he is going to invent brand new idea of a physically ‘massive singularity’. There is also nothing in whole paper that could indicate that he was talking about ‘massive singularity’ type of thing.

swch

Above is a more relevant point in this paper where he was giving an example of ‘point mass’ equal to mass of sun. Well, if I write a book on gravity, I will also use similar examples. But instead of using term ‘point mass’ equal to mass of earth, I will use phrase “hologram earth with nothing solid but real gravity equal to the gravity of earth.” It will make simple for me to explain what should be the behavior of falling body if there is no solid ground capable to stop motion under gravity. Schwarzschild was trying to explain gravity field in this sense. But since his paper was too complex … It was prone to interpretation errors. Apparently same thing happened. He died soon after publication of this paper while some other Physicists, excluding Einstein, started taking this ‘point mass’ with literally real meanings and eventually these concepts became the basis of all the coming singularity based black hole physics. However Big Bang Initial Singularity was going to emerge from a different source.

The Big Bang Theory acknowledges Alexander Friedmann as its founder. Friedmann must be unaware of misinterpreted concept of singularity that emerged in year 1916. In 1922, Friedmann founded a genuine (not misinterpreted) concept of ‘monotonic world’.

fms

The ‘monotonic world’ of Friedmann was not ‘point mass’ at all. Simply, it was radius of universe at time 0. Friedmann’s model is actually consistent with Steady State Model though in the Steady State model there is no time 0. Just like Steady State model, radius of universe is to be increased with increase (creation) of matter such that total density remains the same. According to Friedmann, at time 0, mass was also 0. His monotonic world was not a point mass – it was like a singularity which is not consistent with Big Bang Model. Following point in Friedmann’s 1922 paper clearly shows that radius of universe increases or decreases with increase or decrease of both time and mass content of universe and this thing aligns his model with the Steady State Model rather than with Big Bang Model.

mx4

Here ‘M’ stands for total mass contents of universe and x4 is fourth coordinate and denotes time. Its meaning is that with increase or decrease of time, mass content (M) has to increase or decrease. This point is clearly in line with Steady State Model and thus Big Bang Model is actually not supported by Friedmann’s model. And with this setup where mass is getting reduced if we go back in time, then at 0 time there has to be 0 mass. Hence Singularity of Friedmann is not consistent with the singularity of Modern Big Bang Cosmology where there is infinite mass (or density at least) at 0 time, 0 radius. And actually Big Bang model has no other source of initial singularity which means that essentially Big Bang Model’s ‘Initial Singularity’ has come from misunderstanding of Friedmann’s actual model.

By 1927 when Lemaître published his French article, he was not aware of Friedmann’s work. In 1927 article, there is no concept of singularity at all. There is a ‘pre-expansion universe’ which was static Einstein’s universe. But then ‘pressure of radiation’ caused equations to change (cosmological constant modified) and universe came under the rule of revised equations (revised by Lemaître himself). Thus Lemaître was unaware of singularities by 1927. Then it happens that in a meeting at a conference, Einstein told him that Friedmann had already talked about expansion stuff. Now onwards, Lemaître would start studying Friedmann and would misinterpret and absorb his ideas of monotonic world. In year 1931, Lemaître would first time talk about Primival Atom i.e. singularity sort of thing. For further detail, please see A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory.


[i] Acknowledgement – I got introduction of role of John Michell from Mr.Bill Gaede.

[ii] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9905030.pdf

“Universe is under no obligation to make sense”. An analysis of this Argument

argument

“Universe is under no obligation to make sense”

Supporters of the Big Bang Theory often give reply to criticism of their theory in the form of above quoted argument.

Well … This is a misleading argument. This argument is correct but applies only to realities that are unknown. For example there may be an incomprehensible reality regarding how life started on earth. This is a reality but makes no sense simply because it is unknown. If a reality is known then it was comprehensible in the first place that’s why it has been ‘known’. But if there is a claim that a reality is known under an incomprehensible (counter intuitive) mode or category then either that ‘claimed reality’ is mere fiction or at the most, a distorted form of truth. Known realities are known because they could be known. They were comprehensible in the first place. They were compatible with the understanding abilities of human mind. Known realities must therefore make sense. They cannot be counter intuitive.