Posts Tagged ‘Big Bang’

Cosmic Inflation Hysteria, Bio Evolutionary Hysteria

May 12, 2017

What If Cosmic Inflation Is Wrong? Where It Is Shown That Scientists Are Prisoners Of What Looks Good:

How plausible is a piece of knowledge? How does one establish the plausibility of a piece of knowledge? This is the sort of meta theory of knowledge (meta-”epistemology”) which the progress of science unceasingly reveals.

Thus, establishing new science is not just a revelation of the world out there, but a revelation of how we think, and, even better, how we could think, if we wanted to be even more clever than we already are.

In particular mass sociological effects control the “data” all too easily, the more subtle the “data” is.

Here we consider evolution and especially the attitude relative to Lamarck, and then the so-called Big Bang, or as it is now fashionable to say among the cognoscenti, in a bout of poetic mystifying jargon, the ΛCDM model. (Much more sophisticated than Big Boom theory!)

In both cases, silly, and thus all the more enthusiastic, herd effects are involved.


Nothing Real New In Darwinism, But Lots Of Insufferably Shattering New Ideas In Lamarck:

The debate about biological evolution was exemplary: Greece was making lot of money from having mastered selection of species, both natural and artificial, 25 centuries ago. Anaximander, earlier, informed us we all evolved from fishes. Then came the Christian Jihadists, burning books, libraries and infidels, cutting intellectuals alive with oysters shells until they succumbed. Fast forward 23 centuries, and research professor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, having ruined his eyes by spending thousands of hours studying mollusk, and other invertebrate fossils behind his microscope, came up with several new insights.

Lamarck thought that evolution was urged along by two other forces. Teaching evolution was outlawed in England, Lyell and Darwin went to learn it in Edinburgh, Scotland. Next Darwin rolled the basic Greek theory out, claiming to have observed it in Galapagos finches as Lamarck had observed it mollusks. Darwin’s basic theory, purged from its Lamarckian elements, became widely accepted.    

There was no proof that the further additions suggested by Lamarck were wrong, though. However, believing that there was anything in evolutionary theory beyond what the Greeks already knew 25 centuries ago, became “unscientific”. Since when is believing that something could be true which we have no proven is not true “unscientific”?

Since science is a church with great bishops?

Nothing was really completely new in Darwinism, but lots was really new, and religiously shocking, in Lamarck. After lots of ridicule, Lamarck took 2 centuries to be proven right.

We know now that Lamarck was right on one of his two suggested mechanism. And I am pretty sure he is true on the other. Underlying both is full bore Quantum Physics.

Thus spoke Zarathrustra.


Here comes the Bible, latest version! Perfectly correct, if one supposes their suppositions about their suppositions just as correct…

Inflationistas’ Hysteria:

I am for more mild inflation in matters economical, and also in matters cosmological, but not beyond that.

For decades, cosmologists have screamed from every rooftop that cosmic inflation was right. I was dubious, because they made an hypothesis which was astounding, to explain something rather mundane. (And extremely natural, if one entertains the fancy that the universe is hundreds of billion years old, not just 13.8 billion!)

The short of it is that the universe is huge, at least 45 billion light years across, but looks everywhere the same, as if it originated from just one place (or as if it were immensely old). To explain the discrepancy, some cosmologists, starting in the USSR, assumed the universe expanded at enormously faster than light speed. The speed of light along loops in space is locally limited. The speed of space, though is not limited (a curved manifold of dimension n embeds in one of dimension (2n +1) so that the curvature of the former is a trace of the flat one of the latter).

This was a huge hypothesis to explain a smaller problem. Basically, it looked as if cosmologists had got the temporal dimension of the universe wrong. Or maybe the Big Bang was wrong. Or maybe both, a bit.

Instead, cosmologists assumed a completely new force, Cosmic Inflation, and thus a completely new source of energy. They went for a phantasmagoric “explanation”, instead of modestly admitting that they did not really witness the proverbial “First Three Minutes”, from their position, on the right of God.

If CI existed, why should CI appear just once? Why not here, there, and everywhere, now, yesterday and tomorrow? Could one make universes out of nothing? Yes, yes and yes, screamed hysterical cosmologists from all rooftops.

A rule in thinking is that when one has a problem with a ready class of explanations one should not explain it with supernatural explanations from the get-go, before the more obvious explanations have been proven wrong.

Here conventional theories of the Hot Big Bang may not be not quite correct, so hysterical physicists decided that everything-we-know makes no sense, to start with. It turns out that their arguments amounted to hand waving (OK, a gas cools down when expanding; however a quantum fluctuation is not a gas!) fabulous mathematician cum physicist Roger Penrose claims that obtaining a flat universe classically without any recourse to inflation out of a quantum fluctuation is 10^100 more likely.

A casual look shows that conventional Big bang theory makes a lot of assumptions we have no proof of (for example in astrophysics). Absence of logical contradiction is no proof of experimental existence. Especially when, in the end, the theory one gets (the conventional Hot Big Bang) seems incorrect (because nothing can solve the flatness problem, short of immense age!)  

The philosophical problem became even more acute when an experimental cosmological inflation was discovered, Dark Energy. The conjunction of CI and DE made the universe expand tremendously, brake down, and then re-accelerate. Weird. Both inflations differ by a factor of 10^27 in their energy density.

So why not go with Dark Energy alone? Then the universe maybe hundreds of billions of years old.

Why not? Just to say that can’t possibly be true, because one has seen the universe expands very fast, in a tremendous cosmic inflation, amounts to starting with one’s conclusion.


The Common Denial Mechanism About Evolutions Either Biological Or Cosmological; We Know, You Don’t, & What We Know Pleases Authority:

The Big Bang cosmology is in the exact mood of the Bible: nothing really new in that mood. They can say they have numbers, I can see there is a lot of completely circuitous logics, where the end proves the beginning. In any case, if it’s in the Bible, it’s right, and God cares about creating a little universe for us.

What hurt with Lamarck’s insights was the God of the Bible again (and the entire empires resting on it). Lamarck basically said intelligence, animal intelligence and an increasing mysterious complexity organizing force intrinsic to life, organized the universe. In any case, smarts, but not those of the God of the Bible. That was therefore censored from the Anglo-Saxon world, where God is a question of national security, or, at least, manifest destiny, grabbing entire continents… When the forces of obscurantism had to surrender, they embraced an obscure amateur gentleman researcher of good English stock. (Not to demean Darwin, but Lamarck, and even his enemy, competitor, contradictor and colleague Cuvier, did the heavy lift, 60 years prior…)

Insights about what truth could be never comes from herds, especially herds of mandarins, when they are genuinely new.  

Patrice Ayme’

Points Against Multiverses

December 31, 2015

Physics, the study of nature, is grounded not just in precise facts, but also a loose form of logic called mathematics, and in even more general reasonings we know as “philosophy”. For example, the rise of Quantum Field Theory required massive Effective Ontology: define things by their effects. The reigning philosophy of physics became “shut-up and calculate”. But it’s not that simple. Even the simplest Quantum Mechanics, although computable, is rife with mind numbing mysteries (about the nature of matter, time and non-locality).

Recently the (increasing) wild wackiness of the Foundations of Physics, combined with the fact that physics, as it presently officially exists, cannot under-stand Dark Energy and Dark Matter, most of the mass-energy out there, has led some Europeans to organize conferences where physicists meet with reputable  philosophers.

Einstein Was Classical, The World Is Not. It's Weirder Than We Have Imagined. So Far.

Einstein Was Classical, The World Is Not. It’s Weirder Than We Have Imagined. So Far.

[Bell, CERN theory director, discovered a now famous inequality expressing locality, which Quantum physics violate. Unfortunately he died of a heart attack thereafter.]

Something funny happened in these conferences: many physicists came out of them, persuaded, more than ever, or so they claimed, that they were on the right track. Like little rodents scampering out in the daylight,  now sure that there was nothing like a big philosophical eagle to swoop down on them. They made many of these little reasonings in the back of their minds official (thus offering now juicy targets).

Coel Hellier below thus wrote clearly what has been in the back of the minds of the Multiverse Partisans. I show “his” argument in full below. Coel’s (rehashing of what has become the conventional Multiverse) argument is neat, cogent, powerful.

However I claim that it is not as plausible, not as likely, as the alternative, which I will present. Coel’s argument rests on a view of cosmology which I claim is neither mathematically necessary, nor physically tenable (in light of the physics we know).

To understand what I say, it’s better to read Coel first. Especially as I believe famous partisans of the Multiverse have been thinking along the same lines (maybe not as clearly). However, to make it fast, those interested by my demolition of it can jump directly to my counter, at the end: NO POINTS, And Thus No Multiverse.


Multiverses Everywhere: Coel Hellier’s Argument:

Coel Hellier, a professional astrophysicist of repute, wrote :  “How many Big Bangs? A philosophical argument for a multiverse”:

“Prompted by reading about the recent Munich conference on the philosophy of science, I am reminded that many people regard the idea of a multiverse as so wild and wacky that talking about it brings science into disrepute.”

Well, being guided by non-thinking physicists will do that. As fundamental physicist Mermin put it, decades ago:

The Philosophy "Shut Up And Calculate" Is A Neat Example Of Intellectual Fascism. It Is Increasingly Undermined By The Effort Toward Quantum Computing, Where Non-Locality Reigns

The Philosophy “Shut Up And Calculate” Is A Neat Example Of Intellectual Fascism. It Is Increasingly Undermined By The Effort Toward Quantum Computing, Where Non-Locality Reigns.

Coel, claiming to have invented something which has been around for quite a while, probably decades: My argument here is the reverse: that the idea of multiple Big Bangs, and thus of a multiverse, is actually more mundane and prosaic than the suggestion that there has only ever been one Big Bang. I’m calling this a “philosophical” argument since I’m going to argue on very general grounds rather than get into the details of particular cosmological models.

First, let me clarify that several different ideas can be called a “multiverse”, and here I am concerned with only one. That “cosmological multiverse” is the idea that our Big Bang was not unique, but rather is one of many, and that the different “universes” created by each Big Bang are simply separated by vast amounts of space.

Should we regard our Big Bang as a normal, physical event, being the result of physical processes, or was it a one-off event unlike anything else, perhaps the origin of all things? It is tempting to regard it as the latter, but there is no evidence for that idea. The Big Bang might be the furthest back thing we have evidence of, but there will always be a furthest-back thing we have evidence of. That doesn’t mean its occurrence was anything other than a normal physical process.

If you want to regard it as a one-off special event, unlike any other physical event, then ok. But that seems to me a rather outlandish idea. When physics encounters a phenomenon, the normal reaction is to try to understand it in terms of physical processes.”

Then Coel exposes some of the basic conclusions of the Standard Big Bang model:

So what does the evidence say? We know that our “observable” universe is a region of roughly 13.8 billion light years in radius, that being the distance light can have traveled since our Big Bang. (Actually, that’s how we see it, but it is now bigger than that, at about 90 billion light years across, since the distant parts have moved away since they emitted the light we now see.) We also know that over that time our observable universe has been steadily expanding.

Then astrophysicist Coel start to consider necessary something about the geometry of the universe which is not so, in my opinion. Coel:

“At about 1 second after the Big Bang, what is now our observable universe was only a few light years across, and so would have fitted into (what is now) the space between us and the nearest star beyond our Sun. Before that it would have been yet smaller.”

What’s wrong? Coel assumes implicitly that the universe started from a POINT. But that does not have to be the case. Suppose the universe started as an elastic table. As we go back in time, the table shrinks, distances diminish. Coel:

“We can have good confidence in our models back to the first seconds and minutes, since the physics at that time led to consequences that are directly observable in the universe today, such as the abundance of helium-4 relative to hydrogen, and of trace elements such as helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7.[1] Before that time, though, our knowledge gets increasingly uncertain and speculative the further back we push.”

These arguments about how elements were generated, have a long history. They could actually be generated in stars (I guess, following Hoyle and company). Star physics is not that well-known that we can be sure they can’t (stars as massive as 600 Suns seem to have been discovered; usual astrophysics says they are impossible; such stars would be hotter than the hottest stars known for sure).

Big Bangists insist that there would have been no time to generate these elements in stars, because the universe is 13.8 billion years old. But that 13.8 billion is from their Big Bang model. So their argument is circular: it explodes if the universe is, actually 100 billion years old.

But back to Coel’s Multiverses All Over. At that point, Coel makes a serious mistake, the one he was drifting towards above:

“One could, if one likes, try to extrapolate backwards to a “time = zero” event at which all scales go to zero and everything is thus in the same place. But trying to consider that is not very sensible since we have no evidence that such an event occurred (from any finite time or length scale, extrapolating back to exactly zero is an infinite extrapolation in logarithmic space, and making an infinite extrapolation guided by zero data is not sensible). Further, we have no physics that would be remotely workable or reliable if applied to such a scenario.[2]

…”all scales go to zero and everything is thus in the same place.” is not true, in the sense that it does not have to be. Never mind, Coel excludes it, although he claims “extrapolating back in time” leads there. It does not.

Instead, Coel invites us to Voodoo (Quantum) Physics:

“So what is it sensible to consider? Well, as the length scale decreases, quantum mechanics becomes increasingly important. And quantum mechanics is all about quantum fluctuations which occur with given probabilities. In particular, we can predict that at about the Planck scale of 10−35 metres, quantum-gravity effects would have dominated.[3] We don’t yet have a working theory of quantum gravity, but our best guess would be that our Big Bang originated as a quantum-gravity fluctuation at about that Planck-length scale.”

Well, this is conventional pata-physics. Maybe it’s true, maybe not. I have an excellent reason why it should not (details another time). At this point, Coel is firmly in the conventional Multiverse argument (come to think of it, he did not invent it). The universe originated in a Quantum fluctuation at a point, thus:

“So, we can either regard our Big Bang as an un-natural and un-physical one-off event that perhaps originated absolutely everything (un-natural and un-physical because it would not have been a natural and physical process arising from a pre-existing state), or we can suppose that our Big Bang started as something like a quantum-gravity fluctuation in pre-existing stuff. Any physicist is surely going to explore the latter option (and only be forced to the former if there is no way of making the latter work).

At times in our human past we regarded our Solar System as unique, with our Earth, Sun and Moon being unique objects, perhaps uniquely created. But the scientific approach was to look for a physical process that creates stars and planets. And, given a physical process that creates stars, it creates not just one star, but oodles of them strewn across the galaxy. Similarly, given a physical process that creates Earth-like planets, we get not just one planet, but planets around nearly every star.”

Coel then gets into the famous all-is-relative mood, rendered famous by “French Theory”:

“It was quite wrong to regard the Sun and Earth as unique; they are simply mundane examples of common physical objects created by normal physical processes that occur all over the galaxy and indeed the universe.

But humans have a bias to a highly anthropocentric view, and so we tend to regard ourselves and what we see around us as special, and generally we need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation that we’re normal and natural products of a universe that is much the same everywhere — and thus is strewn with stars like our Sun, with most of them being orbited by planets much like ours.

Similarly, when astronomers first realised that we are in a galaxy, they anthropocentrically assumed that there was only one galaxy. Again, it took a beating over the head with evidence to convince us that our galaxy is just one of many.”

Well, it’s not because things we thought were special turned out not to be that nothing is special. The jury is still out about how special Earth, or, for that matter, the Solar System, are. I have argued Earth is what it is, because of the Moon and the powerful nuclear fission reactor inside Earth. The special twist being that radioactive elements tend to gather close to the star, and not in the habitable zone. So Earth maybe, after all special.

At this point, Coel is on a roll: multiverses all over. Says he:

“ So, if we have a physical process that produces a Big Bang then likely we don’t get just one Big Bang, we get oodles of them. No physical process that we’re aware of happens once and only once, and any restriction to one occurrence only would be weird and unnatural. In the same way, any physical process that creates sand grains tends to create lots of them, not just one; and any physical process that creates snowflakes tends to create lots of them, not just one.

So, we have three choices: (1) regard the Big Bang as an unnatural, unphysical and unexplained event that had no cause or precursor; (2) regard the Big Bang as a natural and physical process, but add the rider that it happened only once, with absolutely no good reason for adding that rider other than human parochial insularity; or (3) regard the Big Bang as a natural and physical event, and conclude that, most likely, such events have occurred oodles of times.

Thus Big Bangs would be strewn across space just as galaxies, stars and planets are — the only difference being that the separation between Big Bangs is much greater, such that we can see only one of them within our observable horizon.

Well, I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that those opting for (3) are the ones being sensible and scientifically minded, and those going for (1) or (2) are not, and need to re-tune their intuition to make it less parochial.”

To make sure you get it, professor Coel repeats the argument in more detail, and I will quote him there, because as I say, the Multiverse partisans have exactly that argument in the back of their mind:

“So, let’s assume we have a Big Bang originating as a quantum-gravity fluctuation in a pre-existing “stuff”. That gives it a specific length scale and time scale, and presumably it would have, as all quantum fluctuations do, a particular probability of occurring. Lacking a theory of quantum gravity we can’t calculate that probability, but we can presume (on the evidence of our own Big Bang) that it is not zero.

Thus the number of Big Bangs would simply be a product of that probability times the number of opportunities to occur. The likelihood is that the pre-existing “stuff” was large compared to the quantum-gravity fluctuation, and thus, if there was one fluctuation, then there would have been multiple fluctuations across that space. Hence it would likely lead to multiple Big Bangs.

The only way that would not be the case is if the size of the pre-existing “stuff” had been small enough (in both space and time) that only one quantum fluctuation could have ever occurred. Boy, talk about fine tuning! There really is no good reason to suppose that.

Any such quantum fluctuation would start as a localised event at the Planck scale, and thus have a finite — and quite small — spatial extent. Its influence on other regions would spread outwards, but that rate of spreading would be limited by the finite speed of light. Given a finite amount of time, any product of such a fluctuation must then be finite in spatial extent.

Thus our expectation would be of a pre-existing space, in which there have occurred multiple Big Bangs, separated in space and time, and with each of these leading to a spatially finite (though perhaps very large) universe.

The pre-existing space might be supposed to be infinite (since we have no evidence or reason for there being any “edge” to it), but my argument depends only on it being significantly larger than the scale of the original quantum fluctuation.

One could, of course, counter that since the initial quantum fluctuation was a quantum-gravity event, and thus involved both space and time, then space and time themselves might have originated in that fluctuation, which might then be self-contained, and not originate out of any pre-existing “stuff”.[5] Then there might not have been any pre-existing “stuff” to argue about. But if quantum-gravity fluctuations are a process that can do that, then why would it happen only once? The natural supposition would be, again, that if that can happen once, then — given the probabilistic nature of physics — it would happen many times producing multiple different universes (though these might be self-contained and entirely causally disconnected from each other).”

Then, lest you don’t feel Multiversal enough, professor Coel rolls out the famous argument which brings the Multiverse out of Cosmic Inflation. Indeed, the universe-out of nothing Quantum fluctuation is basically the same as that of Cosmic Inflation. It’s the same general mindset: I fluctuate, therefore I am (that’s close to Paris motto, Fluctuat Nec Mergitur…). Coel:

In order to explain various aspects of our observed universe, current cosmological models suggest that the initial quantum fluctuation led — early in the first second of its existence — to an inflationary episode. As a result the “bubble” of space that arose from the original quantum-fluctuation would have grown hugely, by a factor of perhaps 1030. Indeed, one can envisage some quantum-gravity fluctuations leading to inflationary episodes, but others not doing so.

The inflationary scenario also more or less requires a multiverse, and for a similar reason to that given above. One needs the region that will become our universe to drop out of the inflationary state into the “normal” state, doing so again by a quantum fluctuation. Such a quantum fluctuation will again be localised, and so can only have a spatially finite influence in a finite time.

Yet, the inflationary-state bubble continues to expand so rapidly, much more rapidly than the pocket of normal-state stuff within it, that its extent does not decrease, but only increases further. Therefore whatever process caused our universe to drop out of the inflationary state will cause other regions of that bubble to do the same, leading to multiple different “pocket universes” within the inflationary-state bubble.

Cosmologists are finding it difficult to construct any model that successfully transitions from the inflationary state to the normal state, that does not automatically produce multiple pocket universes.[6] Again, this follows from basic principles: the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the spatial localisation of quantum fluctuations, and the finite speed at which influence can travel from one region to another.”

The driver of the entire Multiverse thinking is alleged Quantum Fluctuations in a realm we know f anything. Those who are obsessed by fluctuations may have the wrong obsession. And professor Coel to conclude with more fluctuations:

“The dropping out of the inflationary state is what produces all of the energy and matter that we now have in our universe, and so effectively that dropping-out event is what we “see” as our Big Bang. This process therefore produces what is effectively a multiverse of Big Bangs strewn across that inflationary bubble. Thus we have a multiverse of multiverses! Each of the (very large number of?) quantum-gravity fluctuations (that undergo an inflationary state) then itself produces a whole multiverse of pocket universes.

The point I am trying to emphasize is that any process that is at all along the lines of current known physics involves the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and that means that more or less any conceivable process for creating one Big Bang is going to produce not just a single event, but almost inevitably a vast number of such events. You’d really have to try hard to fine-tune and rig the model to get only one Big Bang.

As with any other physical process, producing multiple Big Bangs is far more natural and in-line with known physics than trying to find a model that produces only one. Trying to find such a model — while totally lacking any good reason to do so — would be akin to looking for a process that could create one snowflake or one sand grain or one star or galaxy, but not more than one.”


Did the universe expand from one point? Not necessarily. It could have been from a line, a plane, a volume, even something with a crazy topology. The Big Bang is the time zero limit of the FLRW metric. Then the spacing between every point in the universe becomes zero and the density goes to infinity.

Did the Universe expand from Quantum Gravity? Beats me, I don’t have a theory of Quantum Gravity.

What I know is that, expanding from what’s known of gravity, if the universe expanded from a “point”, that would be smaller than the Planck volume, thus the universe would be within a Black Hole. From what we know about those, no expansion.

Once we don’t have the universe expanding from a point, we cannot argue that it expanded from one point in some sort of “stuff”. If the universe is the “stuff” itself, and it’s everywhere, and expanding from everywhere, exit the argument about a “point”.

The argument about a “point” was that: why this particular point? Why not another “Quantum Fluctuation” from another “point” in the “stuff”. Why should our “point” be special? Is it not scientific to believe in the equality of points? Except points have measure zero in three dimensional space, and thus it’s more “scientific”, “mathematical” to suppose the universe expanded from a non-measure zero set, namely a volume (and it better be bigger than the Planck Volume).

So the argument that there should be many universes because there are many points and many Quantum (Gravity) fluctuations flies apart.

Remains the argument that we need Cosmic Inflation. Yes, but if the universe expands from all over, all over, there is only one such. Cosmic Inflation does not have to appear at all points generating baby universes, It becomes more like Dark Energy.

Speaking of which, why should we have two Cosmic Inflations when we already have one? Even my spell checker does not like the idea of two inflations. It does not like the “s”. Ah, yes, the existing Big Bang needs its own Inflation.

Yet if there is only one inflation, presto, no more standard Big Bang, But then what of Helium, Lithium, etc? How do we synthesize enough of those? Well maybe we would have much more time to synthesize them, inside stars… Especially super giant stars.

Another word about these Quantum Fluctuations. Are they the fundamental lesson of Quantum Physics (as the Multiversists implicitly claim)? No.

Why? There are several most fundamental lessons about Quantum Physics. Most prominent: the DYNAMICAL universe is made of waves. That fact, by itself implies NON-LOCALITY. It also implies neighborhoods, no points, are the fundamental concepts (one cannot localize a wave at a point). This is the origin of the “Quantum Fluctuations”.

So we just saw that “Quantum Fluctuations” may not be the most fundamental concept. Fundamental, yes, but not most fundamental. When debating fundamentals with the Devil, you better bring exquisite logic, and a Non-Local spoon, otherwise you will be Quantum fluctuated out.

Patrice Ayme’

Cosmic Background Fanaticism

July 3, 2014

We have one experimental find: the Cosmic Radiation Background (CRB), a uniform light from all over the sky at 2.7 degree Kelvin. I will argue that, on the face of it, it has three possible causes. However only one is considered to be true, and is consequently explored to death. That is, as if the lives of physicists depended on it. In truth, it’s only their careers that depend upon it.

A theory nearly everybody believes in, is the “Big Bang”. After all, it’s in the Bible. The Bible is popular, thus, so is the “Big Bang”. As behooves something so big, it’s supposed to explain everything, for example why there is a Cosmic Radiation Background, why there is Helium, etc.

Pleiades Star Cluster: Close To Olbers Effect...

Pleiades Star Cluster: Close To Olbers Effect…

Skeptics will smirk: for centuries people searched for the Cosmic Radiation Background: then, it was called “Olbers Paradox”. The “Paradox” was that there should be a Cosmic Light Background (the light of distant stars)…

Olbers’ reasoning was simple: 1) suppose the universe is infinite. 2) thus looking anywhere around the sky, once gaze is bound to end on the surface of a star. 3) therefore the sky ought to be uniformly bright according to the brightness of the average star.

[Let’s forget modern subtleties such as Red Dwarf Stars and Brown Dwarves…]

However, pointed out Olbers there was no uniform brightness.

Now one such uniform cosmic light has been found, though, nobody seems to remember Olbers’ name. Olbers’ reasoning is inconvenient.

Indeed, ever since Maxwell, we have established that light is electromagnetic radiation. So the Olbers Paradox could very well show up, not as visible light, but as a weak radiation. Why? Well, suppose that distant parts of the Universe recede, as Hubble and his predecessors and colleagues observed: the light from distant stars would shift into the very deep infrared… As observed!

However, now that the Olbers Paradox has become the Olbers Effect, it’s used to explain something else completely different, and outright weird: the Big Boom. Instead of being the light of distant stars (or the like), as Olbers would have had it, the Cosmic Radiation Background (CRB) is viewed as the light from… an explosion.

We see the expansion, we see the stars, we see the galaxies, do we see the explosions?

And the question then appears: what happened to the initial Olbers Paradox? Why does nobody talk about it anymore? Could it not be that the Cosmic Radiation Background is even boosted the Olbers Effect with, say, tired light?

Why are these sort of natural, historically laden questions not addressed anymore?

The answer is simple: take Princeton University’s Physics Department. All professors there are string theorists. Problem: strings don’t exist. So these people are professors of inexistence. No wonder they can’t answer history.

It’s true that theoretical considerations can lead to phenomenological interrogations. But string theory had its chance. By occupying all the theoretical space, it prevents other theories to have their chance too.

Let’s change intellectual gears, and lift the debate into Meta.

What we have here is one experimental find: the Cosmic Radiation Background (CRB), a uniform light from all over the sky at 2.7 degree Kelvin.

We have three possible explanations, yet only one is pushed and pushed and pushed. That’s not the proper scientific method. To figure things out, we have to look everywhere, and make sure that logical branching points have been explored.

OK, governments do not give enough money to do that. They prefer hedge fund managers and Google clowns.

In the age when robots can replace most work, it’s time to reconsider this. Why? Why is it so important to get the universe right? Well, be it only because by doing so, we make our intelligence more subtle. In Bangladesh, the sea is now rising more than 16 millimeters per year, threatening one hundred million people. And nobody knows why.

Perfecting our ability to observe and make theories is our essence. And no better place there is to perfect it than the entire universe.

On a more aggressive meta level, to understand fanaticism, and the related intellectual fascism is urgently needed. In this respect the entire field of physics, as the self described most clever people in the world can be exposed to be complete fools.

Remember the TOE? The Theory Of Everything? Well, as we now know, physicists have theories on, at most 4% of the universe. And those are obviously incomplete. But that’s another story.

In the same vein, maybe they have only a 4% explanation of the Cosmic Radiation Background. Those who are honest enough, and clever enough, will admit that may well be true. No honesty in matters intellectual, no intelligence.

Patrice Aymé


December 19, 2013

Abstract: Dark Energy is a fact. Dark Energy is not an extrapolation such as the Big Bang, or an extrapolation of extrapolations, such as Cosmic Inflation. Dark Energy enables a completely different cosmology. Taking Dark Energy seriously renders Cosmic Inflation and the Big Bang superfluous… And the universe very old.

The basic reasoning establishing the Big Bang is of primary school level. And yet, from recent observations, it is probably erroneous. I propose that the universe is rather of the order of 100 billion years old rather than 13.7 billion [sic!]. Why do I think the universe is much bigger, and much older than most accredited, professional cosmologists do? Why are celebrity physicists misinforming the public?

Galaxies To Infinity. 100 Billion Years Old, I Say.

Galaxies To Infinity. 100 Billion Years Old, I Say.

[One photon a minute to get this picture!]

Boldly averaging observations of red shifts in our neighborhood, it has been artistically found that galaxies located 3.2 million light years away recede at 72 kilometers per second (that art was involved is obvious when one gets in the detail… And why Hubble got the numbers wrong by a factor of two initially).

Divide that inter-galactic distance by that speed, and that should tell a primary school student when the universe started. The good news: physicists understand this. The bad news: it’s all too simple, reality seems to disagree.

Let’s do the computation in detail.

(We will use the notation “^” to indicate powers; so 10^2 is (10) (10), 10^4 is 10,000, etc.)

Light covers (3) (10^5) kilometers in one second, and there are around 100,000 = 10^5 seconds in a day. So light covers (3) (10^10) ( 3) (10^2) ~ 10^13 kilometers in a year (=10,000 billion kilometers). Multiply that by (3) (10^6), the distance to that receding galaxy, to get:

(3) 10^19) kilometers (3 times ten billion billion kilometers). Divide by 70 kilometers per second, to find how many seconds it took for galaxies to separate 3.2 million light years: that’s ½ (10^18) seconds. Now there are around (3) (10^5)(10^2) seconds in a year. One gets roughly 14 billion years.

14 billion years ago, or so, the material of that 3.2 million light year away galaxy was next door.

From, there, applying the Principle of Homogeneity (PH: that everything is everywhere roughly the same), one deduces that all those things that became galaxies were next to each other. Notice that this recourse to PH is a philosophical jump: it seems likely, because it is the simplest we can think of, but it’s not a sure thing.

The only way this could have happened is if this expansion all started in the same place… in time (not space!). Presto, you have the result that the history of the universe is that of a Big Bang that started 14 billion years ago. So far, so good.

Notice a second philosophical jump occurred: to get to the conclusion that there was a Big Bang, we assumed that the expansion happened at the same rate, all along. That sounded like the easiest hypothesis, 80 years ago (or when the Big Bang was explicitly formulated, around 60 years ago). But there was NO proof, that the expansion had been at that rate all along, and some observers of things cosmological, or theoreticians, begged to differ (even during the 1960s).

I certainly did not agree with the certainty that the preceding reasoning was a sure thing, because it was not. I do not trust concept that are viewed as sure things, when obviously they are not. I view in them probable examples of herd effects.

However, in the last ten years, it turned out that, to everyone’s amazement, a fact unanticipated by the majority of cosmologists emerged. The rate of expansion was found to be increasing noticeably.

A force expanded the fabric of space ever more. It was called “Dark Energy” (energy, because that’s what one needs to expand space, dark, because the force vector itself could be not be seen; also there already was one problem, called “Dark Matter”, mass distributed all over, dwarfing the visible mass).

I Propose Doing Away With Weird Stuff On Left Side Of the Sketch (Explosion, Cosmic Inflation, etc.)

I Propose Doing Away With Weird Stuff On Left Side Of the Sketch (Explosion, Cosmic Inflation, etc.)

The very existence of “Dark Energy” immediately busted the “universe is 14 billion years old” conclusion. Indeed, one cannot assume the expansion was 71 kilometers per second, all along, when we see that this expansion is now accelerating. It’s changing: get it? C H A N G E… It’s changing now, so it should have been changing in the past.

It’s more logical to suppose the expansion was always there, and accelerated all along, that the expansion accelerated in the past as it does now. So as the expansion of the universe is NOT linear now, it’s only simpler, logically, to suppose that it was NOT linear in the past. Instead, it looks as if, in first approximation,the expansion of the universe was some sort of exponential tapering fading in the past.

(In other words, since its rate is accelerating now, we may as well suppose it accelerated similarly, all along! Instead the extrapolated Big Bang + extrapolated Cosmic Inflation + Observed Dark Energy implies that the rate of acceleration of the Universe varied enormously in the past: first accelerating gigantically, then slowing down, then coming to a standstill, then re-accelerating… Weird!)

On the back of an envelope, considering the present rate of acceleration of the expansion, and extrapolating that acceleration in the past, your generous servant can determine the universe ought to be 100 billion years old, rather than 14 billion years.

Some will whine: and what of the Cosmological Background Radiation? Well I have a Quantum answer to that. There are also other explanations available such as Olbers Paradox, and Tired Light.

The 100 billion year old universe is philosophically, axiomatically, simpler. (It also gives a lot of time to explain enormous large scale structures such as bubbles and walls of galactic clusters, which looked too organized to have evolved in a mere 14 billion years.)

Why is it that physicists are presenting the date of 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe with so much certainty? Because smug, god like certainty, is what sells. To know things that only an oligarchy knows, especially if this esoteric knowledge violates common sense, can only make one famous, thus powerful. Hence well fed, the pelt lustrous and the mien proud.

Some do not require more than this: they are simple apes, greed is their event horizon. Real thinkers are made of nobler stuff. Meanwhile, the universe is out there: let’s look carefully, but emotionally, at the picture above: millions of galaxies, as far as we can see. One cannot avoid the feeling that this universe is much older than simply thrice the age of the Earth.

And now that’s what the simplest logic, clinging to the established facts, embraces.

Patrice Aymé

Deflating BIG BANG’s Inflation.

March 25, 2012


Abstract: The Big Bang cosmological model is possibly completely false. It depends alarmingly upon the speed of expansion of the universe, assuming that, for reason and mechanism unknown, it was, at some point, for some convenient duration, trillions of trillions of times the speed of light. Or maybe not.

I give also a few other reasons to throw cold water on the Big Bang.

Geometrically the Big Bang assumes that it is “turtles all the way down”. Yet, Quantum Physics, properly interpreted, gives us reasons to think otherwise. Especially after integrating the latest experimental results on the apparent singularization of Quantum waves (2011). (If that gets confirmed, singularization is the greatest discovery in Quantum Physics since 1924: Louis De Broglie would be right, and Niels Bohr, wrong. I have always believed in singularization.)

It is unfortunate that this activity, Big Bang physics, has been all too much celebrated as the greatest success of the human spirit, and scientific rigor. I will try to show below that it is closer to mythology than to proper science. Although my reasons below are deep and cogent, it is clear that even the masses have some intuitive doubts about scientists who seem all too sure about the grandest scheme of things. Having Hawking telling us about “A Short History of Time“, when nobody knows what time is, is not conducive to respect.

No wonder that, with such a model as the Big Bang brandished all the time as science much to admire, and presumably to emulate, all too many people feel that with science, anything goes. And thus, as often found in the USA, in a further identification, that anything goes is science. So to each its own. And next thing you know, fundamentalists pop up in every backyard.

On the positive side, Big Bang madness gives an opportunity to illustrate the fact that the topology of the space of all theories is not connected (if a single one of a few hypotheses Big Bangists make casually, is false, the Big Bang theory will completely implode into the nothingness it claims the universe arises from!)

[The essay is technical in parts; readers are invited to imitate Big Bang physicists, and jump over any part they don’t understand, to get a feeling for the overall message, which is that Big Bang physics is not science according to the most exacting standards of science… Paradoxically enough for an area with such pretense!]



A physicist relates in “Turtles all The Way Down?” that he got an interesting email about the Big Bang. Basically the writer said it was obvious mythology, and the physicist insisted it was not so: “The writer said she didn’t see how you could make something out of nothing. She collects creation myths and thought that, no matter how you sliced it, it’s always “turtles all the way down.” This is a reference to creation myths where the world is poised on top of a turtle, which is itself poised on top of something else, but raises the issue: Is there any firm ground?

This is worth addressing because it illustrates the gulf between the understandings in people’s minds about the Big Bang on one hand, and how physicists deal with it on the other. To be clear – we have a wealth of observations that support the Big Bang, but you have to be careful. We can only look back into the universe to a moment 300,000 years after the ‘start,’ as best we can discern it. At this early moment, the universe went from being opaque to transparent… The remnant photons from this time are seen as the so-called cosmic microwave radiation “

The later pontificating affirmation depends upon the common wisdom interpretation of the 3 degree Kelvin Cosmic Microwave Radiation as photons from the Big Bang explosion. Well, that’s mostly an hypothesis. For example, if photons, just as neutrinos (long thought to be massless), turn out to have a non zero rest mass, that hypothesis will be out of the window.

Those cosmic microwave photons are supposed to be cosmically distended, and thus weakened, by the expansion of their wave packets from the cosmic expansion of space, the later itself depending upon the Big Bang model. This is just a supposition, albeit a crucial one. In other words, the Big Bang model is eerily reminiscent of a house of cards of mutually supporting assertions: turtles all the way down in a mutually supporting circle.

I will argue that it looks all too much as a vicious circle to be used as a way to illustrate what science is. Science is about establishing iron clad proofs, not wishful thinking with proofs depending upon what they want to demonstrate (which is all what the interpretation of cosmic photons as big bangers is).

Reconciling models with data sounds reasonable. That is what is done in most of science. However it is not scientific, if the models have nothing to do with reality to start with. If the model is angels on a pinhead, no amount of tweaking of the model, will get it right.

This is related to a much more general problem, that of the distance between systems of thought (which is all what “models” are). If models are too far from each other, they cannot morphed into each other.

When Darwinian style models were unable to explain ultra fast adaptative evolution, epigenetics had to be invented.

The greatest discovery in cosmology since the discovery of the expansion has been the fact that it proceeded at an accelerating pace. That was not predicted by the main stream cosmology.

It was pointed out by De Sitter (1917), Friedman (1924) and Lemaître (1927) that the Einstein gravity equation described an expanding universe (none of these scientists were American).

The work of a number of astronomers, culminating with Hubble, confirmed the expansion later: the visible universe was dynamic. As an homage to American hegemony, Lemaître’s law came to be known as Hubble Law. Never mind that Hubble himself as late as 1936, did not believe in the Big Bang finding weird the “anomaly of a curiously small and dense and… suspiciously young universe”. Besides the injustice, it introduces a flaw in the logical flow of discovery.

When it became obviously confirmed that distant galaxies were receding, and the further, the faster, Einstein proclaimed his “greatest blunder”, that of having introduced a “Cosmological Constant”, precisely to imply a static universe.

The Einstein gravity field equation was built to reflect Riemann’s 1854 idea on the nature of force. That came out of his  Habilitationsschrift entitled Über die Hypothesen welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen (“On the hypotheses which underlie geometry“), a remarkable essay that contained just one equation (if that). Riemann observed that acceleration could be described by geodesics behavior, whether they came together, or separated. Thus force could be so described.

Basically, applied to gravity, that meant the gravity equation ought to be: curvature of spacetime = mass-energy of spacetime.

However Quantum Physics was discovered meanwhile. It says that energy travels in packets (Planck 1900-Einstein 1905). Yet, those packets are computed by waves (De Broglie 1923).

In other words, it was not turtles all the way down. At some point, the turtles turn into waves.

Einstein’s gravity equations did not incorporate matter, in a detailed way, that is, Quantum Physics. When some Quantum Field Theory ideas were introduced a bit (Zeldovich, before 1973, “Hawking radiation“, 1974), it turned out that, after all, Black Holes evaporated (contrarily to what Michell (1784) and Laplace (1796), discoverers of the idea of Black Holes would have expected to be ever possible in the slightest way).

But much more needs to be done: except when wave packets have collapsed, matter is all waves. The exact nature of these waves is unknown. Recent Quantum experiments, using “weak measurements” apparently exhibit waves-with-singularities, the picture De Broglie himself had proposed to go further than the Copenhagen Interpretation of de Broglie’s work.

Should something like the Big Bang make sense, the exact mathematical nature of the matter waves, and how to accommodate those singularities would have to become paramount. (As the purported  confirmation of the singularities was published on June 2, 2011 in Science magazine, the depth of these considerations will take some time to reach the society of cosmologists… After all it took more than 40 years to realize that the time-energy uncertainty implied Black Hole evaporation, which should have been immediately obvious!)

Back to our cosmological theory timeline. Time passed. Gamow made fun of the notion of everything coming out of a point, calling it the “Big Bang“. However, the Cosmological Cosmic Background was found at 3 Kelvin, a remnant, it was suggested of said explosion.

That ruled out the Steady State Cosmology, it seemed.

Yet, when regions distant by more than light can travel, they were found to be the same, as if the universe had always been there.

So some physicists postulated that the universe had expanded faster than light by an enormous factor. That was called inflation, caused by a non observedinflaton field“.

Indecipherable reasonings were rolled out to claim that the mass-energy uncertainty inequality could be made to fabricate matter and energy, as needed. Indecipherable: indeed, a point of infinite density does not make sense in Quantum Physics (which basically insists that there are no points). And never mind that the new Big Bang, cosmological inflation looked exactly like Hoyle’s Steady State theory, after all (as Hoyle himself pointed out to a frosty reception in 1994).

The Big Bang reasonings are full of major assumptions whose proofs are justified by the end, namely the Big Bang, truly a beginning (as found in the Bible?).

For example, how do we know that cosmological photons do not, in some sense, simply age, producing thus the 3 Kelvin background? How do we know that, if the universe can expand so incredibly fast at some point, it could not expand incredibly slow, at some other point? Or even shrink for a while, in a recession, before resuming inflation?

For that matter we do not know why, at this point, the universe is expanding ever faster. Or is it just here?

And what is the evidence that a universe can be created out of nothing? Stanford’ s professor Linde, one of the originator of the inflation cosmology, has been writing articles where he creates universes all over, all the time. There is zero evidence for that.

(There was a whole school of Soviet physicists who, for philosophical reasons, were highly critical of “General Relativity”, starting, correctly with its absurd name; they followed Vladimir Fock 1955 book… which I own. Zeldovich and Linde were among them, they basically discovered much of what was attributed later to Western physicists, to emphasize the glory of plutocratically connected universities!)

Big bang specialists will snarl that I did not mentioned that GUTs (Grand Unified Theories)fit the Big Bang like a glove, so my objection that the Quantum is not integrated in the Big Bang is uninformed.

However, we talk of different things, at different scales. The Big Bang ultimately makes assertions, unsupported assertions, I added, about what is called the Trans-Planckian scale, where Quantum Field Theory breaks down. Conventional Big Bang theory uses basically Riemann’s mathematics from 1854 CE that ignores the waves-with-singularities that the universe is probably made of. That’s fine as a classroom project, it’s not fine as an example of what science can do, or, a fortiori, of what science is.

Big Bang cosmology is not science in the usual meaning of the term. It’s not molecular biology, geology, or material science. Nor mathematics. It’s all too much a bunch of assumptions piled up on top of each other, covered up by ironclad naïve certainty, a contagious illness probably contacted from the Standard Model of particle physics.

Real science demonstrates why Sea Lions and Seals, although they look the same, at first sight, are actually very different, since they evolved from very different ancestors. That illustrates well convergent evolution, when the same mathematics in the environment lead to the same solutions.

Real science demonstrates how stars evolve, going through many stages according to their masses and the nature of the various successive thermonuclear reactions in their core.

Real science explains why life is carbon based, thanks to the wealth of complexities carbon chemistry lends itself to.

Real science explains what happens to cause a tsunami (confirming what Greek philosophers suspected it was, 25 centuries ago).

Big Bang cosmology uses all too finely tuned reasonings unsupported by firm logic or experimental certainty, all over its theoretical landscape. Possibly, it’s completely false. It is unfortunate that this possible complete falsehood is depicted by physicists eager for cheap fame or book sales as the ultimate in science. In its present state, it is the best creation mythology we have, or an amusing project, but little more than that.

Inflated science is poetry, or metaphor. It is not science. Real science is truth. Real science is what’s left when everything else has been exposed as lies. In the case of the Big Bang, among other things, all other possibilities besides the common interpretation of Cosmic Microwave Background, have not been examined in detail, and thus

Real science is what allows planes to fly, not a bunch of lies and exaggerations held together by the thin veneer of self glorification. Scientific poetry, such as the Big Bang, is closer to science fiction, or mythology.

John Huth concludes his essay reasonably with: “We [Big bang cosmologists]fully realize that our models will extrapolate to conditions that raise difficult issues, like infinite densities. More often than not, the difficult conditions are something we avoid talking about, because, largely, we cannot really test or measure these. If it is inaccessible, it is inaccessible. The work can be perhaps more likened to the work of explorers. Our job is to map new territories, and, if anything, we can only report on territories we’ve explored. What lies beyond the horizon is a matter of speculation.
Responses? Questions? Contact me on Twitter @John Huth”

One would wish cosmologists would be that reasonable, all the time, for all to read and hear. How well one has explored, that is the question. For the longest time, explorers reported the strangest things and monsters they had absolutely seen (an exasperated Aristotle dispatched students to go out and faithfully report on all the biology they could rigorously observe). To claim one has seen light from a big boom may be true, but it is not scientifically demonstrated. Yet.

(And that photons do not age seems unlikely to me for reasons I have mentioned in older essays of mine. I am happy to report that Feynman, no less, approved of my considerations when I evoked them.)

One interest of science is to teach how the faith we have in models can be reconciled with evidence. That the distance between models can be insurmountable is an important lesson in the history of thought. No amount of tweaking could bring the geocentric theory close to the correct one, the heliocentric theory. One had to shatter the faith, to realize that yes, quite possibly, planets were turning around the sun: that is what Buridan and his students concluded around 1300 CE, after rolling over Aristotle’s erroneous physics, and introducing the concept of inertia. However, of course, they added perfidiously, ‘scripture‘ said the sun turned around the Earth, so we may as well believe that, since we cannot tell at this point, for sure.

If the distance between models with scientific pretense can be insurmountable, so can it be, for the distances between mentalities (and, in particular, civilizations). That is the core justification of the crackdown secularism had to implement upon murderous superstitions. (The obvious example being the outlawing of the Celtic or Carthagenese religions, to put it intemporally, not wanting to allude to anything having to do with the sects of Abraham… At least today.)

It’s not turtles all the way down, or turtles everywhere. Genuinely different thought systems and mentalities exist. And the way to explore that is by excluding all other possibilities, the way real science does, and the way that, precisely cosmology of the origins does, and cannot do.

Some will cynically argue that, to get funding to launch satellites and other big science projects, one needs pretty stories to charm the infantile minds of politicians. But I will not go down that slippery slope.

The main interest of science is to teach to the obscure masses how to learn to distinguish  truth from fiction. Everything else, however useful, is secondary. To pass a charming fiction such as the Big Bang for a certainty is just the sort of masquerade of the scientific method that genuine scientist will want to eschew.


Patrice Ayme


July 9, 2010


Warning: A subquantal conceptual big bang is applied to the Big Bang itself, sparks fly…


Abstract: Conventional Big Bang Theory depends upon some unproven physics at the Quantum level. Although experiments, so far, show Quantum Mechanics to be 100% true, there is a good reason to believe that this will not perdure. The problem with Quantum Mechanics is that it violates Nothing Instantaneous at Distance ("NID"), an undeclared physics metaprinciple which has always triumphed, ever since the ape came down from the tree to preach man.

NID is not a physical law in the sense of the laws that allow to make computations, but it has always been found to be true… until today’s official formulation of conventional Quantum Mechanics, which blatantly violates it.

The author boldly sketches its own theory, which is driven by respect for NID. After rendering Quantum Mechanics obsolete, it is an easy task to dispose of one of the paradoxes of the present Big Bang Theory. We have nothing to fear, but fun itself. Not for those that the Philosophy of Quantum Theory frightens.


Physicist Tamara Davis, writing in Scientific American, July 2010, tries to solve a paradox of Big Bang theory by getting rid of the law of conservation of energy. Quite a feat, since conservation of energy is exactly the deepest foundation of physics. Whatever I am going to do next to perspectives in physics in the present essay, it will not be as ridiculous. Thus encouraged, I will go boldly where no mind has gone before.

Dr. Davis exposes the problem this way: "Almost all of our information about outer space comes in the form of light, and one of light’s key features is that it gets redshifted—its electromagnetic waves get stretched—as it travels from distant galaxies through our ever expanding universe, in accordance with Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. But the longer the wavelength, the lower the energy. Thus, inquisitive minds ask: When light is redshifted by the expansion of the universe, where does its energy go? Is it lost, in violation of the conservation principle?"

She then advocates that the cosmological redshift can be thought of as a photon making many tiny little Doppler shifts along its directory. According to her, Doppler shifts do not represent a true loss of photon energy, only a change of perspective (from one galaxy, to another receding galaxy).

Verily, in the (creationist) Big Bang Theory, physicists said: "Let There Be Light!" and so all was light in the beginning. Some of the light, in Big bang Theory (BBT) turned into matter, some kept on going, and we receive the later now as a diffuse 3 degree Kelvin radiation.

In more details, the paradox is this: say somewhat after the BB, some of the energy was light, E(L), and some was matter E(M). E(L) will be made of a given number of photons, say N, with average energy A. So E(L) = N A. Now, according to Planck’s inauguration of Quantum Mechanics, A = h V, where V is the average photon frequency. So E(L) = h N V. But, according to BBT, V goes down, as the universe expands. Nowadays V corresponds to very very cold light. But initially V was extremely, unimaginably incandescent gamma ray light. Thus E(L) has gone down from enormous to negligible! In other words, looking at BBT in the simplest fashion, a gross violation of energy conservation is in full evidence. Part of the problem is that in Einstein’s Relativity, spacetime has no physical reality (in contradistinction with the old ether theory, old ether being what electromagnetic waves were supposed to wave). Thus the energy lost by Big Bang light cannot be transferred to something else, since the only thing around is spacetime, and spacetime has no reality (not that simple, see P/S 4) .

Of these sorts of simple contradictions great scientific progress is made. Anybody could have pointed out to Aristotle that he had neglected air (or water) resistance. But one had to wait Buridan, 17 centuries later, to do so, discovering Newton’s First Law, more than three centuries before Newton was born… But I digress…

Dr. Tamara Davis escapes with a pirouette. She simply states that laws such as energy conservation does not apply to the universe as such. (Useless a pirouette it is, because a moment’s reflection show that energy conservation will also be violated for arbitrarily small subsections of the universe).

I have a simpler suggestion: to remake all of physics from scratch, while respecting the conservation of energy. Here is a sketch. First I do away with localized particle trajectory. So, when a particle goes from X to Y, according to me, it is not localized. A particle is not a particle until it has been localized. Proof: well, first we have no proof that they are localized, so why to suppose they are, as most physicists, even many Quantum physicists suppose? It’s not because, as monkeys, we found 20 million years ago that stones were localized when flying towards our opponents, that this is still true when the stone is a particle of light. Actually it is the opposite which is obvious.

The reasons to believe photons delocalize is the fact that photons (and all particles) take the entire geometry into account as they propagate: wherever they can go influences where they will end up. Propagating particles embrace the whole. They always end up in a particular place, but that place is computed by the implied order of the whole. This is the most basic idea in Optics, and Quantum Mechanics.

One way to partly say this is that light behaves as a wave. So light goes around a sphere from everywhere, goes through two slits, etc. The idea that light could be a wave came initially from Huyghens, but he did not have the wealth of examples that would be found in the next two centuries (Young’s slits and Poisson’s dot). This wave behavior is used in lenses.

So it was long anticipated that light would delocalize: a wave is intrinsically delocalized. So far, so good. Newton preferred to think of light as a particle (he was a great man, and wanted to be greater than Huyghens that way, so he had to contradict him!) It is easy to see why: the ancient Greeks had anticipated atoms, the smallest possible pieces. Newton just assumed there would be atoms of light. Experiences of Hertz, discovering the photoelectric effect, in combination with Planck’s atomization of light energy (one now says "quantization"), led Einstein to suggest the "heuristic viewpoint" that therein a proof that light was made of particles.

So wave or particle? The situation became more intriguing when photons (or, in general, particles) were fired in the apparatus (whatever it is), one photon (or particle) at a time. Photons (or particles) still behaved like waves.

The largest optical apparatuses (please excuse the Anglicized Latin grammar…) known are galactic clusters. They lens the light, using their formidable gravitation to do so. According to Einstein theory of gravitation, light follows geodesics of spacetime, and those are bent by mass. (Newton’s theory of light produces roughly the same gravitational lens effect, as Laplace, who predicted black holes, using Newton’s particle theory of light, would have pointed out.)

So far so good, but what does that mean? That means photons delocalize around galaxies themselves… since they interfere with themselves, around galaxies themselves. This, of course boggles the mind, so common minds do not like to consider the possibility. But there is no alternative.

Hence the atom of light, the photon, is, most of the time, quite far from being at a single point. Instead it can "localize" at points which are quasi infinitely large geometries. The astute mathematician will be reminded of Alain Connes’ "Non Commutative Geometry", where points can be spaces.

I say, "most of the time", because a cosmological photon is for billions of years out there… in its delocalized state. I am just observing this, as it is. Most physicists, including the honorable Tamara above, represent photons following trajectories, as if they were Newton’s particles. But they are not. even Einstein made that elementary conceptual mistake (he did not need to go into the subtleties of the EPR thought experiment to find delocalization!).

Usual Quantum Mechanics is an abstraction of what is observed in human sized laboratories. Although, recently, photon delocalization experiments were conducted over distances up to dozen of kilometers. The results respected scrupulously the QM predictions. However, I am persuaded that this will not be the case as the distances become astronomical. I have a reasoning for this that I borrowed from Newton: namely, nothing can be instantaneous and at a distance. Such was the objection of Newton to his own theory of gravitation (which was instantaneous, and at a distance. "Einstein’s" theory of gravitation uses Faraday’s field concept and the speed of light to address Newton’s worries).

That nothing can be instantaneous and at a distance ("NID") was already the core of the Einstein Podolski Rosen paradox ("EPR"). EPR pointed out that "elements of reality", according to QM, could be spread out arbitrarily wide, and that makes no sense (because they took it for granted that everybody believed in NID).

However, the Bell inequalities were checked by Aspect and others, showing that it is exactly what happens. So, now getting inspiration from Raymond Poincare’, I will paraphrase him faithfully: if something is exactly what always happens , then it is a law of nature. Poincare’ brandished this meta principle to justify his postulate that the speed of light would always be measured to be c (this idea is attributed to Einstein, who actually read it in a book of Poincare’; Poincare’, like Buridan, was French, so he could not possibly have had a deep idea, according to the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy which considers that French culture has to do with wine and cheese. Only).

So let’s be clear: experimentally, and from its very formulation, Quantum Mechanics violates NID, "No Instantaneous Distance".

Thus, if NID, "No Instantaneous Distance", is made into a metaprinciple, one has to deduce that Quantum Theory, as it is, is false. Or more exactly incomplete, the way Newton’s gravitation is incomplete.

In this view, to complete QT one has to do away with its instantaneous at a distance aspect, thus, one has to impose the existence of a SUBQUANTAL INTERACTION.

Some hypocrites will scream that I do not respect the metaprinciple of minimum logic ("Ockham’s razor"), that this is not worthy physical speculation anymore. But actually Big Bang Theory supposes an unobserved, and unobservable field, the inflaton. At least my subquantal field is observable, and I claim that a lot of the 3 degree Kelvin cosmological radiation is just such an observation (3K radiation actually sets detection level for detection of the subquantal field).

In truth, all and any Quantum process is all about widely spread elements of reality that QM claim instantaneously convert to the singular. This is the old "Collapse of the Wave Packet". I just say it proceeds at some speed, TAU (ten to the ten the speed of light at least). To simplify, I will also hypothesize that this the speed at which the linear quantum guiding wave also spreads. That wave is known as the Quantum Potential in David Bohm’s refurbished version of De Broglie’s guiding wave theory (ooopss, De Broglie was another Frenchman, he invented the full blown Quantum Theory in 1923; QM was attributed to others later, although de Broglie got the Nobel 6 years after writing his thesis).

The difference between me and Bohm is that I have no more particle, and the Quantum Potential spreads at TAU. The potential is actually a MATTER WAVE. De Broglie seems to have believed in the physics of matter waves all along (Schrodinger adopted the idea, but was subsequently ridiculed by over-smart types such as Von Neuman; Von Neuman claimed to have demonstrated that there was no Quantum mechanics but Quantum mechanics, but it is increasingly understood that this is not correct). De Broglie had tried a particle-less theory too, the "double solution" .

I have my own version of the "double solution". It exploits the instability of non linear waves. A stable non linear wave, such as a soliton, is a fine balance between linear dispersion and non linear singularization. I view elementary particles, including photons, as a dance between the two aspects: when there is linear propagation (at TAU), linear dispersion, what we hypothesize to be "particle" propagation, dominates. When the matter wave field becomes locally too strong, having interacted with a subquantal field, it singularizes itself, localizing itself in one point.

A number of thought experiments and real practical experiments with very low intensity lasers interfering, show that matter waves are real. The matter wave from one laser guides, through interference, the photon from the other laser.

OK, let’s back down from the conceptual edge, and go back to our cosmological photons. How does the guiding wave and its delocalization fit in all this? What does this theory of mine all mean? As a photon’s linear guiding matter wave approaches a galactic cluster at TAU, imagine the scene: the linearized, delocalized photon matter wave, ten million light years across, bearing down on a galactic cluster at ten billion times the speed of light. The delocalized photon’s matter wave has a high probability to encounter a (still hypothetical) graviton‘s matter wave, or other the matter wave of some other particle hanging around the cluster.

The sudden local non linearity in the photon’s guiding wave leads to a collapse of said delocalized linearized photon. Then the photon will suddenly singularize, namely appear and interact somewhere. However, over the cosmological distances the delocalized photon was spread about, NID says that some of the photon will be unable to singularize in that spot where the singularity has started. Thus a distant piece of the delocalized photon will get separated from the rest of the singularizing photon, and hang around as cosmological flotsam. The photon will have reddened. In the next cycle, the photon, now a bit weakened, will delocalize again, and repeat the process. If this is correct, and the mean free (delocalized) path of cosmological photons varies (according to whether they come around regions full of matter), photons flying more in extremely empty space will be more redshifted (which is contrary to common sense, and will compete with the fact that photons zigzagging in clusters will get redshifted just from said zigzagging; so the two effects will have to be carefully distinguished).

Some will say that my theory violates relativity in spirit, if not outright computations, etc. Sure. That Relativity’s equations have proven extremely precise, for example for GPS, does not say anything about whether it is still obviously valid at the scale of galactic clusters.

Anyway, there is much more to say, but not today.


Patrice Ayme


P/S 1: So, if light ages, for (sub) Quantum reasons, is the Big Bang completely false? Well, I do not know. Galaxies very far away seem younger, and all Quasars are very far away (at least 800 million light years) showing that, even if there was no Big Bang, the universe has been, in any case, changing, if not aging.

A reason to be extremely suspicious about the Big Bang is that the prima facie evidence for it, the expansion speed of the universe, is truly unknown: supernovas studies have shown it to be (incredibly!) accelerating (to be confirmed!). Moreover, conventional Big bang Theory has to hypothesize inflation, an expansion at gigantic multiple of the speed of light, for the entire universe. Differently from me here, the reasoning is ad hoc, and not from first, time honored principles. My motivation, as Nietzsche would insist, comes from the highest principles, saving the principle of energy conservation and NID, whereas the motivation of Big Bangers is as low as it can get, because they had to invent a field to save their creationism.

P/S 2: The famous Dirac pontifically declared in his text book that photons interfered (ONLY!) with themselves. But that was before the invention of lasers, which allowed to demonstrate that this statement was not correct. The fact that matter waves are real, if 100% confirmed, will probably be viewed, in the future, as the greatest discovery of Twentieth Century science.

P/S 3: The sketch of theory above was presented to some of the heroes of physics (LdB & RF).

P/S 4: "Spacetime is no real substance", hard core relativists love to claim, sounding a bit like hard core Muslims about the moon. But this is not clear, even in conventional Relativity. Indeed, spacetime can wave. By shaking the source of a field, any field with a finite propagation speed, one can shake said field at a distance, and thus shake an object responsive to said field, at a distance, after a while. Thus a finite propagation field carries energy away, and Einstein gravitational field does not escape to that rule.

But Planck had discovered that electromagnetic energy was quantized, i.e., made of lumps, quanta, particles. The particles are called photons. By logical simplicity, one assumes the same for gravitational energy. Hence the prediction of gravitons, in analogy with photons. But now, the gravitons are supposed to be particles like any other boson. Do they make spacetime or not? Do photons make the electromagnetic fields, or are just its quantal manifestations? Thus the question of the spacetime as a real substance becomes the question of the reality of the electromagnetic field as a real substance.

Simple questions, deep answers still unknown: for more than 30 years, it was obvious that potentials (by contradistinction with fields) could have a direct effect, being on the right hand side of the Schrodinger equation (which came from de Broglie). But one had to wait for Bohm and his student Aharanov to notice that (and it was immediately verified experimentally). By then the American born Bohm had been banned from the good old USA (for practicing all too advanced philosophy, apparently a no-no for the US Congress and Princeton University, in spite of Einstein just wanting him as assistant)…

P/S 5: The theory above in particular, and Quantum Theory in general, have absolute bearing on what philosophers call ontology, the study of existence. Indeed, Bohm posthumously published last book was: “The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory” (1993).

P/S 6: Naturellement, the theory above applies to (expected to exist by the field-wave-particle principle) gravitons. So gravitons ought to age, hence weaken, as they get away from dense sources of matter, and far out, for the same reason as the photons above.

This may relate to "Dark Energy": if there is less gravitational force to block the expanding force, expansion will accelerate. Notice in passing that this subquantal field of mine, which is each propagating particle, is expanding tremendously, at TAU (>>>>> c). So we may have the reason for the expansion of the universe below our noses, or more exactly between our eyelashes, as we see light waves interfere there… Any Quantum propagation is an inflationary universe, reduced to its simplest case, with, de facto, gravity zero (otherwise an interaction with a graviton would bring de-coherence).

In the present morass of General Relativity, gravitons are supposed to not interact with themselves (which makes no sense: they would be the only such particles). Speaking of morass, I did not stoop to mention the Copenhagen Interpretation (where TAU is hypothesized to be infinite, among other radical simplifications), and the Many-Worlds Interpretation (obviously a schizoid absurdity).