Category Archives: Dark Matter

It is not polite to discuss DWRT

Leave a reply

I recently commented on an astrophysicist’s blog regarding a claim I consider ahistorical and inaccurate. The comment was deleted. I don’t have a problem with that – a blog is a personal space. However, I was responding to a specific claim about the origin of General Relativity that is both common and false. What follows is the one paragraph remark I was commenting on and my now-deleted response which admittedly ranges a bit further than simply refuting the quote requires:

The equivalence of inertial mass with gravitational charge is a foundational principle of general relativity. There are flavors of GR in which it falls out explicitly, e.g., Yilmaz’s gravity. But it is basically an assumption.

The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass was an observed and measured fact known to Galileo and Newton. It was not an assumption of GR. The mid-20th century extensions of what is now called the Weak Equivalence Principle were little more than conjectures of mathematical convenience “suggested” by Robert H. Dicke. They had nothing to do with the development of GR.

Along with John A. Wheeler’s aphoristic, empirically baseless, invocation of a causally interacting spacetime, Dicke’s two extensions of the WEP were surreptitiously hung on Einstein’s General Relativity producing a grotesque variant that by rights should be known as Dicke-Wheeler Relativity Theory. It is DWRT that has been the officially taught version for the better part of 50 years although the D-W distortions are almost always attributed to Einstein. He would have puked.

It is DWRT that prompts otherwise rational people to insist that, despite theoretical and empirical evidence to the contrary, the speed of light is some sort of universal constant. It is DWRT that promotes the false claim that Einstein explained gravity as being caused by the curvature of space.

As far as space itself goes, it is a relational concept exactly like distance. That is all the evidence supports. In fact, space is best understood as the aggregate of all distances that separate you from all the other things in the Cosmos that aren’t you. Substantival space is a mathematicist fiction that has no scientific basis.

Throughout the Cosmos, everywhere within our observational range where there is no matter there is only electromagnetic radiation. That is an empirical fact. Everywhere people imagine they see space there is electromagnetic radiation. At any given 3D location that radiation is flowing omnidirectionally from all the omnidirectional emitters (stars and galaxies) within range. That is what we observe and that is how we observe.

As Mach surmised we are connected to the rest of the Cosmos or at least to those objects within range. That non-simultaneous connection is via electromagnetic radiation – that is what’s there. Until recently no one had bothered to do a full survey of what might be called the Ambient Cosmic Electromagnetic Radiation. The authors of this interesting paper seem to think they are the first. Everybody else was too busy looking for some dark stuff apparently.

Modern theoretical physics is all theory and no physics; it consists of nothing but the unrelenting and fruitless effort to prop up two inert century old models whose assumptions of mathematical convenience were lapped by physical reality decades ago. Tinkering with obsolete mathematical models does not constitute a scientific endeavor even if that is all that has been taught for the last 40 years.

Mathematicist Follies & the DWRT

Leave a reply

Here are some choice tidbits from a recent Tim Anderson article titled Zero-point energy may not exist. I’m always supportive of any effort to drag theoretical physics back into contact with empirical reality so the suggestion that ZPE may not exist is at least promising. It even suggests the possibility that modern theoretical physics might emerge from its self-imposed exile in Plato’s cave, the cave-of-choice in this case being mathematicism.

In reading the article any hope of a scientific restoration is dashed, as one is quickly immersed in sea of mathematicist illogic. Here for instance is the “reasoning” that underlies the ZPE concept:

…it means that nothing has non-zero energy and because there is an infinite amount of nothing there must be an infinite amount of energy.

While it is clear that the author is distancing himself from the ZPE concept, that account of the underlying “reasoning” gives rise to the simple question, how did such flamboyantly illogical nonsense gain any traction in the scientific community? The answer of course is mathematicism which is itself a flagrantly illogical proposition, just not recognized as such by the denizens of the mathematicist cave. Then there is this little gem (emphasis added):

Quantum field theory, which is the best theory of how matter works in the universe that we have, suggests that all matter particles are excitations of fields. The fields permeate the universe and matter interacts with those fields in various ways. That is all well and good of course. We are not questioning that these fields exist. The question is whether a field in a ground state has any measureable effect on matter.

So in their “best theory” the universe is permeated by many fields and matter is an excitation of those fields. Physical reality however only contains one observed field and that is the electromagnetic field which is the aggregate of all the electromagnetic radiation that permeates the Cosmos. That radiation is constantly being emitted by all the luminous matter that also permeate the Cosmos. There are no additional observed fields as described by QFT. 

Despite the fact that the QFT fields are not observed the author does not wish to question their existence. Why? Mathematicism, of course. If a math model says something is there and physical reality declines to offer any evidence in support of such a conjecture, the mathematicist position is that the math is correct and reality is perversely withholding the evidence.

Imagine we have a sensitive Hawking radiation detector orbiting a black hole. The detector is in a state of free fall, meaning that it experiences no gravitational forces on it.

This last bit invokes a wholly imaginary thought experiment involving imaginary radiation emitted by an imaginary black hole. Without any empirical basis or logical connection to known physics, it has no scientific significance even if the “experiment” somehow reflects badly on the ZPE concept. In that, it only amounts to an illogical argument refuting an illogical concept.

The second sentence also presents a widely promulgated claim that has no basis in physics. The idea that an observer or detector in free fall experiences no gravitational forces on it is purely unphysical nonsense. An observer or detector can only be in a state of free fall if they are experiencing a gravitational force. The typical basis for this claim is that the observer is prohibited from making observations that would clearly show the presence of a gravitating body and thus demonstrate the presence of a gravitational field.

Einstein is usually credited with this view but in fact his conception of the equivalence principle was highly constrained and did not extend to fundamentally illogical claims like the one made above. The version of the equivalence principle Einstein employed is now called the Weak Equivalence Principle.

The two extensions of the equivalence principle contrived and adopted after Einstein’s death, the disingenuously named Einstein EP (he had nothing to do with it) and the Strong EP have no logical, scientific or theoretical justification. They were merely conjectures of mathematical convenience proposed by the physicist Robert H. Dicke, who along with his colleague John A. Wheeler, concocted a distorted variant of Einstein’s Relativity Theory. That variant is presented today as Einstein’s RT but it is a separate theory and should have it’s own name — Dicke-Wheeler Relativity Theory. 

It is in DWRT that you will find the EEP and SEP as well as a reified version of spacetime which is said to causally interact with matter and energy causing the gravitational effect and facilitating the Expansion of the Universe. There is no empirical evidence supporting those ad hoc additions to ERT. They are simply mathematicist conjectures that have no scientific basis or logical connection to physical reality. In modern theoretical physics though, they are treated as axioms — true by definition. 

Mathematicism is the principle driver of the Crisis in Physics. The reason for this is simple: math is not physics. The controlling paradigm in modern theoretical physics, however, is that math is the basis of physics and mathematical models determine the nature of physical reality. That paradigm is a philosophical belief that has no scientific basis.

As a consequence of mathematicism theoretical physicists espouse two standard models that describe a physical reality containing a large number of entities and events that are not part of the physical reality we actually observe. Modern theoretical physics does not constitute a science so much as a cult of belief. 

You have to believe in the expanding universe, in dark matter and dark energy, in quarks and gluons. You have to believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant even though it cannot be measured as such and is not constant in General Relativity — at least according to Einstein.* You have to believe in these things because they are not demonstrably part of physical reality. Scientists don’t traffic in beliefs but mathematicists do and so there is a Crisis in Physics

 * The speed of light is a universal constant according to Dicke-Wheeler Relativity Theory.

Simultaneously published at Medium.

Denial Of The Deluded

Leave a reply

The New York Times has a recent guest article entitled The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel. It is in some ways good to see doubts about the Standard Model of Cosmology surfacing in the mainstream press. What the authors, an astrophysicist and a theoretical physicist, have on offer though is some weak tea and a healthy dose of the usual exculpatory circular reasoning.

The authors do point out some of the gaping holes in the SMoC’s account of the Cosmos:

  • “normal” matter — the stuff that makes up people and planets and everything else we can see — constitutes only about 4 percent of the universe. The rest is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy (roughly 27 percent and 68 percent).
  • Cosmic inflation is an example of yet another exotic adjustment made to the standard model. Devised in 1981 to resolve paradoxes arising from an older version of the Big Bang, the theory holds that the early universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. 

That’s a start I guess but then we get this absurd rationalization for simply accepting the invisible and entirely ad hoc components of the SMoC:

There is nothing inherently fishy about these features of the standard model. Scientists often discover good indirect evidence for things that we cannot see, such as the hyperdense singularities inside a black hole.

Let’s be clear here about this so-called “indirect evidence“; all of it essentially boils down to model dependent inference. Which is to say, you cannot see any evidence for these invisible and/or impossible (singularities) things unless you peer through the distorting lenses of the simplistic mathematical models beloved of modern theoretical physicists. People who believe that mathematical models determine the nature of physical reality are not scientists, they are mathematicists and they are deluded – they believe in things that, all the evidence says, are not there.

Not only are mathematicists not scientists, they are not good mathematicians either. If they were good at math and found that one of their models was discordant with physical observations they would correct the math to reflect observations. What mathematicists do is correct reality to fit their math. That is where the dark sector (dark matter & dark energy) come from – they added invisible stuff to reality to make it fit their broken model.

A mathematician did come up with a correction to Newtonian dynamics that had been inaccurately predicting the rotation curves of disk galaxies. Mordehai Milgrom developed MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) in the 1980s and it was quite successful in predicting galactic disk dynamics.

Unfortunately the mathematicists had already off-loaded their problem onto reality by positing the existence of some unseen dark matter. All you have to know about the state of modern theoretical physics is that after 40 years of relentless searching and failure to discover any empirical evidence there remains a well-funded Dark Matter cottage industry, hard at work seeking evidence for the non-existent. This continuing search for that which is not there represents a betrayal of science.

It might appear that the authors here are not mathematicists given that they seem to be suggesting that the SMoC is not sacrosanct and needs to be reconsidered in its entirety:

We may be at a point where we need a radical departure from the standard model, one that may even require us to change how we think of the elemental components of the universe, possibly even the nature of space and time.

Sounds promising but alas, the reconsideration is not to be of the foundational assumptions of the model itself but only certain peripheral aspects that rest on those assumptions such as “…the assumption that scientific laws don’t change over time.” Or they suggest giving consideration to to this loopy conjecture: “…every act of observation influences the future and even the past history of the universe.“

What the authors clearly do not wish to reconsider is the model’s underlying concept of an Expanding Universe. That assumption – and it is only an assumption of the model – was adopted 100 years ago at a time when it was still being debated whether the galaxies we observed were a part of, or separate from, the Milky Way. It was, in other words, an assumption made in ignorance of the nature and extent of the Cosmos as we now observe it. The authors treat the Expanding Universe concept as though it had been handed down on stone tablets by some God of Mathematicism:

A potent mix of hard-won data and rarefied abstract mathematical physics, the standard model of cosmology is rightfully understood as a triumph of human ingenuity. It has its origins in Edwin Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s that the universe was expanding — the first piece of evidence for the Big Bang. Then, in 1964, radio astronomers discovered the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background, the “fossil” radiation reaching us from shortly after the universe began expanding.

For the record, Edwin Hubble discovered a correlation between the redshift of light from a galaxy and its distance. That is all he discovered. It is an assumption of the model that the redshift is caused by some form of recessional velocity. It is also an assumption of the abstract mathematical physics known as the FLRW equations that the Cosmos is a unified, coherent, and simultaneously existing entity that has a homogenous and isotropic matter-energy distribution. Both of those assumptions have been falsified by observations and by known physics.

Also for the record it should be noted that prior to the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation predictions by Big Bang cosmologists ranged over an order of magnitude that did not encompass the observed 2.7K value. At the same time scientists using thermodynamic considerations made more accurate predictions.

The belief in an Expanding Universe has no scientific basis. It is a mathematicist fantasy, and until that belief is set aside, the Standard Model of Cosmology will remain a crappy, deluded fairy tale that does not in any objective way resemble the magnificent Cosmos we observe.

The Self-Deluded Nature of Modern Cosmology

Leave a reply

In a discussion over at ACG, Louis Marmet recently posted this 2022 paper by the cosmologist James Peebles. It is, in essence, another apologia for the current mess in theoretical cosmology offered by one of the prominent purveyors of that mess. The paper is a hot cauldron of disingenuous argumentation based on the usual mathematicist predilection for circular logic that always begins with the premise that the standard model is correct only to arrive at the same conclusion.

Rather than sort through all of the disingenuous arguments presented, I want to focus on a peculiarly blatant factual misrepresentation repeated numerous times throughout the paper. It is this falsehood that the paper’s strained defense of ΛCDM (against the barrage of anomalies besetting the model) relies on:

To reduce the chance of misunderstanding I emphasize that the empirical case that the ΛCDM theory is a good approximation to reality remains compelling. (…)

… the tests have persuasively established that the ΛCDM theory is a good approximation to reality that likely requires refinement. (…)

… the ΛCDM universe has been shown to look a lot like what is observed. (…)

,,, we have a compelling case that the ΛCDM theory is a useful approximation to reality… (…)

… many well-checked tests show that the ΛCDM universe looks much (like) our universe.

Apparently the strategy is the old, repeat the lie often enough and somebody might believe it. The facts of the matter are incontrovertible though. There is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of any of the ΛCDM model’s defining features. The Cosmos we directly observe does not contain any of the following elements:

  • A singularity
  • A Big Bang event
  • An Inflation event
  • Expanding spacetime
  • Dark Matter
  • Dark Energy

Taken together, those are the defining elements of the ΛCDM model. None of them appear in the Cosmos we observe. There is not even a faint family resemblance between the ΛCDM model and the Cosmos we observe. Any claim to the contrary is simply a falsehood.

So how do cosmologists like Peebles wind up convincing themselves that their model universe looks like reality? Obviously empiricism has nothing to do with the matter. It is solely a matter of belief. Modern cosmology is simply a cult of belief. The belief system can be reduced to the following propositions:

  • Mathematics underlies and determines the nature of physical reality. (Mathematicism)
  • The assumptions of the FLRW model that underlies ΛCDM are axiomatically true and therefore the expanding universe of ΛCDM is axiomatically true.
  • Any physical elements that ΛCDM requires physical reality to possess in order to reconcile the model with observations must exist because the model is correct.

To be fair to Peebles here, he does admit that “... the extreme simplicity of the dark sector of the standard ΛCDM cosmology seems unlikely to be better than a crude approximation to reality…“, but that’s a pretty tepid comment considering the “dark sector” (dark matter & dark energy) of the model constitutes 95% of the model’s matter-energy content, while comprising 0% of empirical reality’s matter-energy content. It’s like saying Ptolemy’s epicycles are a crude approximation of physical reality. They are, but that is beside the point.

Both crude approximations are necessary because the underlying models (geocentrism, the expanding universe) are inaccurate representations of physical reality. The crude approximations are necessary because the foundational assumptions of both models are fundamentally wrong.

The standard model of cosmology is a crude approximation of the Cosmos in the same way that Ptolemy’s geocentric cosmology was. The Cosmos is not an “expanding universe” and the Earth is not at its center. It does not matter that cosmologists choose to believe the former but reject the latter. There is no direct empirical evidence to support their belief and the model based on it is palpably nonsensical, being entirely composed of elements (both entities and events) that do not exist in physical reality.

Science is not supposed to be the study of belief systems, it is by definition restricted to the study of physical reality. Modern cosmology as currently practiced is a belief system, not a science. Physical reality bears no resemblance to the standard model of cosmology and vice versa. ΛCDM is an abject scientific failure and it desperately needs to be relegated to the dust bin of history if cosmology is to ever become a real science rather than a playground for self-deluded mathematicists.

Light Cone Confusion In The Here And Now

Leave a reply

The light cone graphic below is taken from a Wiki article. The discussion therein gets the basics right, at least with regards to where the concept of a light cone comes from and the dimensional issues with the illustration.

… a light cone (or “null cone”) is the path that a flash of light, emanating from a single event (localized to a single point in space and a single moment in time) and traveling in all directions, would take through spacetime. (…)

In reality, there are three space dimensions, so the light would actually form an expanding or contracting sphere in three-dimensional (3D) space rather than a circle in 2D, and the light cone would actually be a four-dimensional version of a cone whose cross-sections form 3D spheres (analogous to a normal three-dimensional cone whose cross-sections form 2D circles)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

That’s fine as far as it goes – with two caveats. First of all, the spacetime term should be understood as referring to a relational concept of space and time, not to Wheeler’s causally interacting spacetime. Secondly, contracting spheres of light do not exist in physical reality. Much of the rest of the article is gibberish well encapsulated by the labeling of the illustration which basically renders the image incoherent.

Observer should be labeled Galaxy. A galaxy (TSV) on cosmological scales emits ESWs of light and absorbs ElectroMagnetic Radiation from all remote sources that can reach it.

Future LC = Diverging Light Cone -essentially a projection of an ESW emitted by a galaxy.

Past LC= Converging Light Cone – the aggregate of all the incoming EMR that can reach a galaxy from remote sources.

Hypersphere Of The Present is an imaginary mathematical construct that does not exist in physical reality.

For starters, the image has an observer at the shared apex of the two cones but an observer is not mentioned in the text of the Wiki article. In terms of physical reality an observer is at the apex of a “past light cone” – the observer observes light emitted from distant sources, usually omnidirectional emitters like stars and galaxies.

The “past light cone” is the aggregate of all the inbound radiation from those distant sources onto the observer. Rather than calling it a “past light cone” it would be more accurate to label it a Converging Light Cone, with the understanding that the light cone is a relative, point-of-view phenomenon that has no physical relevance except with respect to the observer.

The “future light cone” does not have an observer at its apex, it has an omnidirectional emitter such as a star or galaxy there. The “future light cone” is an aggregate of the successive expanding spherical wavefronts of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the emitter. The “future light cone” should be more accurately labeled a Diverging Light Cone. The DLC is a physical entity, consisting of sequentially emitted expanding spherical wavefronts of electromagnetic radiation. That understanding flows from Maxwell and Einstein – it is standard physics

Borrowing from radio terminology the emitter/observer can be thought of as a transmitter/receiver or transceiver (TSV). The term transceiver will also be used for an observer-only by considering a non-transmitting observer (such as a human) to be a subcomponent of a transceiver such as a star or galaxy system. With respect to the space and time (relational) labels of the illustration, the apex can be labeled “Here and Now”. So the apex represents the HAN of a TSV.

The rest of the labeling is adequate with the relational nature of space and time caveat being understood. What the illustration then presents us with is a stark refutation of the modern conception of the Cosmos as a simultaneously existing Universe. The TSV (galaxy) is always and only at some unique spatio-temporal location.

The TSV is at the center of the omnidirectionally expanding spherical wavefronts of electromagnetic radiation that it emits – the Diverging Light Cone. A TSV is also at the center of all the electromagnetic radiation that is arriving at its particular place and time from all directions – the Converging Light Cone.

The following statement applies to every possible TSV – everywhere and everywhen. Every TSV is at the center of its own unique “universe” which is just its own unique view of a Cosmos that cannot be simultaneously accessed from any three dimensional HAN.

No TSV can detect the state of a remote TSV that is simultaneous with its own HAN. The finite speed of light prohibits any and all such knowledge. The nearest galaxy to our own, Andromeda, is 2.5 million lightyears distant. We see it in our frame as it existed 2.5 million years ago. We do not have and cannot have any knowledge of its “current” state. Andromeda’s “current” state is not part of the Cosmos we have access to. Andromeda’s HAN does not exist in our unique cosmological frame – Andromeda is always There and Then (TAT) in our cosmological frame.

The two dimensional projection labeled the Hypersurface Of The Present illustrates this clearly. The HAN of any TSV is always and only a local state. All other spatio-temporal locations lie outward – TAT- along the surface of the Converging Light Cone. No TSV has access to the HOTP and in fact the HOTP is only a mathematical/metaphysical construct that has no physical correlate. The HOTP does not exist in physical reality because it represents a universal simultaneity which cannot exist because lightspeed has a finite maximum. There is no physical meaning to the concept of a “universal now” – that is the reason there is no universal frame or “now” in General Relativity.

The apex point represents the only HAN available to any TSV. All remote objects exist only in the transceiver’s past – on the TAT of the Converging Light Cone.

Unfortunately, modern cosmologists are of the opinion that they do have knowledge of this simultaneous something (the HOTP) that does not have any existence in physical reality. That is what the term Universe refers to as employed by cosmologists. They believe themselves to be in possession of knowledge of this imaginary, simultaneously existing Universe that, by the known laws of physics, cannot exist. That 13.8 billion year old entity does not exist by normal scientific standards – it is not an observable.

What modern cosmologists have, of course, is just a mathematical model based on some simplifying assumptions adopted @ 100 years ago at a time when the known Cosmos barely extended beyond our own galaxy. One of the model’s assumptions is that the Cosmos has a “universal” spacetime frame (the FLRW metric) even though, in the context of General Relativity, no universal frame exists. A universal spacetime metric inherently includes a universal time with a universal now. Despite the incongruency, the FLRW metric was applied to the GR field equations. The result of this misbegotten effort speaks for itself:

The Standard Model of Cosmology is a miserable failure; it describes a Universe that looks nothing like the Cosmos we observe. To the extent that it can be said to agree with actual observations, it only arrives at such agreements by insisting that physical reality contains entities and events that physical reality, by all direct empirical evidence, does not appear to contain.

The SMC is junk science or perhaps more accurately, it is a mathematicist confabulation presented as science by people who don’t understand basic physics – that the speed of light in the Cosmos has a finite maximum of @3×108 meters/second. It’s not that they don’t know that fact, they do, but rather they don’t understand what it means in the context of the vast Cosmos we observe. They only know what the SMC tells them and that model, they believe, can’t be wrong because if it were smart people like them wouldn’t believe in it.

In fact though, we have no scientific reason to think that the limited view of the Cosmos we have provides us with knowledge of an unobservable, simultaneously-existing, and expanding Universe. The consensus belief of cosmologists that they have such knowledge can be attributed to the fever dream of mathematicism that deeply infects the theoretical physics community. Modern cosmology is a mess.

Science is not perfect. Mistakes are to be expected in science. The Standard Model of Cosmology is a mistake. The model’s foundational assumption of an “expanding universe” is a mistake. It is a mistake in the same way that geocentrism was a mistake. It is fundamentally wrong about the nature of the Cosmos, It is time to move on from the expanding universe model. I’ll give the last word to the astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa:

Thus, rather than discarding the standard cosmological model, our scientific establishment is digging itself ever deeper into the speculative fantasy realm, losing sight of and also grasp of reality in what appears to be a maelstrom of insanity.

https://iai.tv/articles/our-model-of-the-universe-has-been-falsified-auid-2393

10May24 Acknowledgement: My original concept for the apex of a light cone was that it should be labeled “Here”. In an exchange with the mathematician Robert A. Wilson he made the invaluable suggestion that the apex be called “Here and Now”.

Mass and the equivalence principle(s)

19 Replies

Robert A. Wilson commented on something I posted over at Triton Station:

Certainly, one can hardly argue with the principle of general relativity as a fundamental physical principle. The various forms of the equivalence principle, on the other hand, presume that we already know what mass is – which we clearly don’t.

I’ve invited Robert to elaborate a bit here. So Robert, I agree with you on the principle of general relativity but could you explain what you mean when you say we don’t know what mass is and how that relates to the equivalence principle?

Why The Cosmos Is Not A Universe

1 Reply

One of the fundamental assumptions underlying the standard model of cosmology, commonly known as the Big Bang, is that the Cosmos comprises a unified, coherent and simultaneous entity – a Universe. It is further assumed that this “Universe” can be mathematically approximated under that unitary assumption using a gravitational model, General Relativity, that was devised in the context of our solar system. At the time that assumption was first adopted the known scale of the Cosmos was that of the Milky Way, our home galaxy, which is orders of magnitude larger and more complex than the solar system.

Subsequently as the observed Cosmos extended out to the current 13 billion light year range, it has become clear that the Cosmos is orders of magnitude larger and more complex than our galaxy. The resulting Big Bang model has become, as a consequence, absurd in its depiction of a cosmogenesis and ludicrous in its depiction of the “current state of the “Universe“, as the model attempts to reconcile itself with the observed facts of existence.

It will be argued here that the unitary conception of the Cosmos was at its inception and is now, as illogical as it is incorrect.

I Relativity Theory

The unitary assumption was first adopted by the mathematician Alexander Friedmann a century ago as a simplification employed to solve the field equations of General Relativity. It imposed a “universal” metric or frame on the Cosmos. This was an illogical or oxymoronic exercise because a universal frame does not exist in the context of Relativity Theory. GR is a relativistic theory because it does not have a universal frame.

There is, of course, an official justification for invoking a universal frame in a relativistic context. Here it is from a recent Sabine Hossenfelder video:

In general relativity, matter, or all kinds of energy really, affect the geometry of space and time. And so, in the presence of matter the universe indeed gets a preferred direction of expansion. And you can be in rest with the universe. This state of rest is usually called the “co-moving frame”, so that’s the reference frame that moves with the universe. This doesn’t disagree with Einstein at all.

The logic here is strained to the point of meaninglessness; it is another example of the tendency of mathematicists to engage in circular reasoning. First we assume a Universe then we assert that the universal frame which follows of necessity must exist and therefore the unitary assumption is correct!

This universal frame of the BB is said to be co-moving and therefore everything is supposedly OK with Einstein (meaning General Relativity, I guess) too, despite the fact that Einstein would not have agreed with Hossenfelder’s first sentence; he did not believe that General Relativity geometrized gravity, nor did he believe in a causally interacting spacetime. The universal frame of the BB model is indeed co-moving in the sense that it is expanding universally (in the model). That doesn’t make it a non-universal frame, just an expanding one. GR does not have a universal frame, co-moving or not.

Slapping a non-relativistic frame on GR was fundamentally illogical, akin to shoving a square peg into a round hole and insisting the fit is perfect. The result though speaks for itself. The Big Bang model is ludicrous and absurd because the unitary assumption is wrong.

II The Speed of Light

The speed of light in the Cosmos has a theoretical maximum limit of approximately 3×108 meters per second in inertial and near-initial conditions. The nearest star to our own is approximately 4 light years away, the nearest galaxy is 2.5 million LY away. The furthest observed galaxy is 13.4 billion LY.* This means that our current information about Proxima Centauri is 4 years out of date, for Andromeda it is 2.5 million years out of date, and for the most distant galaxy 13.4 billion years out of date.

Despite this hard limit to our information about the Cosmos, the BB model leads cosmologists to perceive themselves capable of making grandiose claims, unverifiable of course, about the current state of the Cosmos they like to call a Universe. In the BB model’s Universe it is easy to speak of the model Universe’s current state but this is just another example of the way the BB model does not accurately depict the Cosmos we observe.

In reality we cannot have and therefore, do not have, information about a wholly imaginary global condition of the Cosmos. Indeed, the Cosmos cannot contain such knowledge.

Modern cosmologists are given to believing they can have knowledge of things that have no physical meaning because they believe their mathematical model is capable of knowing unknowable things. That belief is characteristic of the deluded pseudo-philosophy known as mathematicism; it is a fundamentally unscientific conceit.

III The Cosmological Redshift

The second foundational assumption of the BB model, is that the observed redshift-distance relationship found (or at least confirmed) by the astronomer Edwin Hubble in the late 1920s was caused by some form of recessional velocity. Indeed, it is commonly stated that Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding. It is a matter of historical record, however, that Hubble himself did not ever completely agree with that view:

To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift “represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature”.

Allan Sandage

However, for the purposes of this discussion, the specific cause of the cosmological redshift does not matter. The redshift-distance relation implies that if the Cosmos is of sufficient size there will always be galaxies sufficiently distant that they will lie beyond the observational range of any local observer. Light from those most distant sources will be extinguished by the redshift before reaching any observer beyond the redshift limited range of the source. Even in the context of the BB, it is generally acknowledged that the field of galaxies extends beyond the potentially observable range.

The extent of the Cosmos, therefore, is currently unknown and, to three dimensionally localized observers such as ourselves, inherently unknowable. A model, such as the BB, that purports to encompass the unknowable is fundamentally unscientific; it is, by its very nature, only a metaphysical construct unrelated to empirical reality.

IV The Cosmos – A Relativistic POV

Given the foregoing considerations it would seem reasonable to dismiss the unitary conception of the Cosmos underlying the Big Bang model. The question then arises, how should we think of the Cosmos?

Unlike scientists of 100 years ago when it was an open debate whether or not the nearby galaxies were a part of our galaxy, modern cosmologists have a wealth of data stretching out now to 13 billion light years. The quality and depth of that data falls off the farther out we observe however.

The Cosmos looks more or less the same in all directions, but it appears to be neither homogenous nor isotropic nor of a determinable, finite size. That is our view of the Cosmos from here on Earth; it is our point of view.

This geocentric POV is uniquely our own and determines our unique view of the Cosmos; it is a view that belongs solely to us. Observers similarly located in a galaxy 5 billion light years distant from us would see a similar but different Cosmos. Assuming similar technology, looking in a direction opposite the Milky Way the distant observers would find in their cosmological POV a vast number of galaxies that lie outside our own POV. In looking back in our direction, the distant observer would not see many of the galaxies that lie within our cosmological POV.

It is only in this sense of our geocentric POV that we can speak of our universe. The contents of our universe do not comprise a physically unified, coherent and simultaneously existing physical entity. The contents of our universe in their entirety are unified only by our locally-based observations of those contents.

The individual galactic components of our universe each lie at the center of their own local POV universe. Nearby galaxies would have POV universes that have a large overlap with our own. The universes of the most distant observable galaxies would overlap less than half of our universe. Those observers most distant and in opposite directions in our universe would not exist in each others POV.

So what then can we say of the Cosmos? Essentially it is a human conceptual aggregation of all the non-simultaneously reviewable matter-energy systems we call galaxies. The field of galaxies extends omni-directionally beyond the range of observation for any given three dimensionally localized observer and the Cosmos is therefore neither simultaneously accessible nor knowable. The Cosmos does not have a universal frame or a universal clock ticking. As for all 3D observers, the Cosmos tails away from us into a fog of mystery, uncontained by space, time, or the human imagination. We are of the Cosmos but can not know it in totality because it does not exist on those terms.

To those who might find this cosmological POV existentially unsettling it can only be said that human philosophical musings are irrelevant to physical reality; the Cosmos contains us, we do not contain the Cosmos. This is what the Cosmos looks like when the theoretical blinders of the Big Bang model are removed and we adopt the scientific method of studying the things observed in the context of the knowledge of empirical reality that has already been painstakingly bootstrapped over the centuries by following just that method.

___________________________________________________

* In the funhouse mirror of the Big Bang belief system, this 13.4 GLY distance isn’t really a distance, it’s the time/distance the light traveled to reach us. At the time it was emitted according to the BB model the galaxy was only 2.6 GLY distant but is “now” 32 GLY away. This “now“, of course, implies a “universal simultaneity” which Relativity Theory prohibits. In the non-expanding Cosmos we actually inhabit, the 13.4 GLY is where GN-z11 was when the light was emitted (if our understanding of the redshift-distance relation holds at that scale.) Where it is “now” is not a scientifically meaningful question because it is not an observable and there is. in the context of GR, no scientific meaning to the concept of a “now” that encompasses ourselves and such a widely separated object.

Adventures in Theoretical Physics II – Fun with General Relativity

Leave a reply

Well here’s a cute little video that manages to do a good job of conveying just how daft and detached from reality theoretical physics has gotten over the last century:

The first 11 minutes or so are effectively a sales pitch for one of the structural elements of the Big Bang Model – Spacetime. The deal is, you’re supposed to believe that the force of gravity is not really there – nothing is holding you to the surface of the earth, rather the earth is accelerating upward and pushing against you.

And the reason this is happening is that you are not following a curved path in –Spacetime, because according to the video you are being knocked off of that curved path by the earth that is accelerating upwards and you are in the way and that’s gravity, tada! How do we know this? Well that’s obvious, it’s in the math and the math tells reality what’s going on and if reality doesn’t like it, that’s too bad. So don’t go trusting your lying eyes, alright.

In addition to Spacetime, this fairy tale is predicated on a ridiculous over-extension of the Principle of Equivalence that Einstein used in developing Special Relativity. Einstein was very clear that the POE applied only under the severely constrained circumstances of a thought experiment. His main purpose seems to have been to provide a physical interpretation for the observed equivalency between gravitational and inertial masses. Einstein presented the POE as informing his ideas about gravity.

The video ignores Einstein’s constraints and pretends the POE is fundamental to General Relativity, so it winds up insisting that things that are obviously not true in physical reality, are, nonetheless, true simply because the math can be framed that way – your lying eyes be damned.

We are told that a man falling off a roof is in the exact same situation as an observer in a non-accelerating rocket ship far from any gravitating body. This claim is made even though it is obviously not true; the falling man will be injured, if not killed, when he hits the ground, whereas no such fate will befall the observer in the rocket ship.

So the idea is, until the falling man meets his unfortunate fate, the situation is the same and therefore both situations are the same, the different outcomes not withstanding – because the math is the same. Observers free falling in orbit won’t be able to tell they’re not in an inertial frame – unless they look out the window, so that’s just like being in an inertial frame too. Right, of course.

In a similar vein, the video insists that an observer in a rocket accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 will not be able to tell the difference between that situation and standing on the surface of the earth. The presenter fails to mention however, that only holds true as long as the observer doesn’t observe out the window, which will alert the observer that the rocket and therefore the observer are not at rest on the surface of a large gravitating body and therefore the situation is not comparable to standing at rest on the surface of the earth. Also, if any observer steps off the rocket, they will be left behind as the rocket accelerates away. But nevertheless, it’s all the same – as long as no one looks out the window, and maybe you remember that the earth is actually accelerating upwards under your feet, like the floor of the rocket. Sure, of course.

For the sake of introducing some sanity in this matter, here is Einstein on the POE. Note that the second paragraph completely contradicts the claims made in the video implying the equivalence of all inertial and non-inertial frames.

We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on the
fundamental property of the gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass…

Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one. We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.

RELATIVITY THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORIES, ALBERT EINSTEIN, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, original version 1916, translated 1920, appendices 3 and 4 added 1920, appendix 5 added to English translation 1954

It is clear from this statement that the POE of Einstein’s thought experiment is the Galilean version, commonly referred to nowadays as the “Weak” POE. The so-called “Einsteinian” and “Strong” POEs of modern cosmology are post-Einstein formulations attributed initially to Robert Dicke, though there were doubtless others who perpetrated and embellished this nonsense. Neither extension of the POE has anything to do with the foundations of Einstein’s Relativity Theory. It is those mid-20th century extensions that are misleadingly presented in the video as fundamental features of General Relativity.

The POE, in its current, extended usage, is mostly just a conjecture of mathematical convenience, allowing theorists to use Special Relativity math instead of the more difficult General Relativity formulations. It also results in a theoretical claim that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant. That claim contradicts both GR which predicts that the speed of light varies with position in a gravitational field and observations which confirm that prediction.

This unwarranted belief that the speed of light is a universal constant has also produced a cottage industry of theorists expounding a theory of undetected structures called Black Holes with the physically absurd properties of an event horizon and a singularity. No such structures exist. The relativistic slowing of light in a gravitational field precludes their existence. It does not preclude the existence of massive high-density objects.

Ok, let’s grant that this video presentation is of dubious scientific quality and does not, perhaps, represent the consensus view of the scientific community, particularly with regard to the so-called Principle of Equivalence, although if not the consensus, the Strong POE certainly commands significant support by a majority of theoretical cosmologists . The usual suspects will whine, of course, that pop-science presentations like this video cannot be trusted.

That complaint is also lodged against anything written for a general audience, even when the author is a fully accredited scientist with a relevant FAS (full alphabet soup) after their name. If it’s written so non-experts can understand it, then it is, on some level, wrong.

The reason for this situation is straightforward: much of what theoretical physicists believe cannot be translated into clear, logical, statements of scientific fact. What you get instead is confident handwaving consisting of metaphysical assertions that have no factual basis in empirical reality and a lot of math. According to theorists this is because theoretical physics can only be properly understood by those steeped in years of study of the underlying mathematical esoterica that informs only the truly knowledgeable. To which the only proper retort is: math is not physics and if your math cannot be translated into empirically verifiable physical terms – then your math is inadequate to the task of being a proper scientific model of physical reality.

The modern POE is just a conjecture of mathematical convenience, nothing more. Nonetheless, this modern POE permeates and perverts the scientific literature. Here is an Encyclopedia of Britannica entry for the POE:

In the Newtonian form it asserts, in effect, that, within a windowless laboratory freely falling in a uniform gravitational field, experimenters would be unaware that the laboratory is in a state of nonuniform motion. All dynamical experiments yield the same results as obtained in an inertial state of uniform motion unaffected by gravity. This was confirmed to a high degree of precision by an experiment conducted by the Hungarian physicist Roland Eötvös. In Einstein’s version, the principle asserts that in free-fall the effect of gravity is totally abolished in all possible experiments and general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial state.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Equivalence principle”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 31 Mar. 2019, https://www.britannica.com/science/equivalence-principle. Accessed 6 June 2021.

It should be noted that, according to the encyclopedia’s referenced article on Roland Eötvös, his experiment “… resulted in proof that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent…“, which is to say, that it demonstrated the Weak POE only. It is also clear, that the authors of this entry are confused about the distinctions between the three POEs. But what of that; it’s only an encyclopedia trying to make sense of the nonsensical world of the modern theoretical physicist and modern theoretical physics is an unscientific mess.

Starts With a Bang, Ends With Nonsense

1 Reply

Ethan Siegel’s columns for Forbes magazine are tour de forces of the illogical circular reasoning that passes for scientific discourse in the modern theoretical physics community. They are best avoided out of respect for the good name of science. It is, however, sometimes instructive, not to mention eye-opening, to slog through one, in order to appreciate just how self-deluded the pseudo-science known as modern cosmology has become.

Case in point: this article from Dec 22, 2020. Therein, Siegel is at great pains to demonstrate that dark matter and dark energy are the only scientific way of accounting for observed cosmological phenomena in the context of the Standard Model of Cosmology, commonly known as the Big Bang model. This is true of course, the BB model can only account for cosmological observations if it is allowed to invoke the existence dark matter and dark energy – so therefore dark matter and dark energy must exist despite the absence of any empirical evidence for their existence. Reasoning can’t get any more circular than that.

In some of Siegel’s arguments there is almost no logical argument at all, just a recitation of certain facts followed by an assertion unsupported by the facts presented, that those factual observations were predictions rather than post-dictions of the model (emphasis added):

What’s remarkable is that, because the laws of physics that govern particles (and nuclear fusion) are so well-understood, we can compute exactly — assuming the Universe was once hotter, denser, and expanded and cooled from that state — what the different ratios of these different light elements ought to be. We’ve even studied the reactions in the lab directly, and things behave precisely as our theory predicts. The only factor we vary is the photon-to-baryon ratio, which tells us how many cosmic photons (particles of light) there are for every proton or neutron (the baryons) in our Universe.

We’ve now measured it all. Satellites like COBE, WMAP, and Planck have measured how many photons there are in the Universe: 411 per cubic centimeter of space. Intervening clouds of gas that appear between us and a distant light source, like a luminous galaxy or quasar, will absorb a fraction of the light as it travels through the Universe, teaching us the abundances of these elements and isotopes directly. When we add it all up, only ~5% of the total energy in the Universe can be normal matter: no more and no less.

What a mess! The central assumption (emphasized above) is simply the BB model, which is itself based on two foundational assumptions:

  1. The cosmos is a unitary, coherent, simultaneous entity – a “Universe”.
  2. The cosmological redshift is caused by some form of recessional velocity.

Neither of those assumptions has any empirical basis and both date to the early 20th century when the scale of the cosmos was barely grasped. They are however, sacrosanct among cosmologists. Those foundational assumptions are, by some common but unstated agreement, true by definition in the cosmological community. They are more than just assumptions, they are beliefs, and they are almost certainly wrong. But, what of that… Assuming our assumptions are correct we can use math to massage our model into agreement with observations – just like good old Ptolemy did way back around the dawn of the previous Dark Ages.

More recently Siegel has posted a similarly obtuse argument concerning the supposed successes of the Big Bang model and its unchallengeable status. It features the same kind of circular reasoning as above: Our model is correct as long as our assumptions and postulates are correct, therefore the things we assume and postulate are correct, because the model is correct. The result of this transparently illogical syllogism, which underlies all of the author’s triumphalist claims for the Big Bang model, is the nonsensical narrative that winds from inexplicable Big Bang to the now 95% invisible “Universe”.

The reason there are no significant challenges to the Big Bang orthodoxy from within the scientific community is that the community members have been trained to accept the 100 year old premises of the model. So, again, the author is correct to this extent: if you accept the model’s premises you are going to wind up with some ludicrous depiction of the Cosmos like LCDM. However, the simplistic assumptions of 100 years ago have proven a disastrous foundation for modern cosmology. The model depicts an inane, unscientific, “Universe” that does not at all resemble, in its defining features, the Cosmos we actually observe.

In the Cosmos we observe there is no Big Bang event, no inflation, no expanding spacetime, no dark matter, no dark energy. All of those things are essential elements of LCDM . None of those things are present in the Cosmos we observe. Physical reality does not look like the LCDM “Universe”. People like the author, who, nonetheless, believe the absurd LCDM story, do so because they are functionally, mathematicists.

Mathematicism is an ancient, half-baked philosophy whose proponents believe that mathematics underlies and determines the nature of physical reality. So, dark matter (& etc.) cannot be empirically demonstrated to exist? That is of no concern to a mathematicist; it all has to be there because a peculiar model (LCDM) requires it in order to reconcile itself with observations, and therefore dark matter (& etc.) have to exist. Pay no attention to the testimony of your lyin’ eyes (and telescopes)!

Mathematicism is junk philosophy. It is not science. How we got to this state of affairs is going to provide plenty of work for future historians of science. For now though, there is much to do just to pry the cold, dead hands of mathematicism from the throat of theoretical physics (which is now barely alive in any scientific sense).

Science rests on observation (detection) and measurement, not the febrile imaginings of reality-challenged, nerd-mathematicists with a cult-model to defend. What passes for science among the theoretical physics community of the academy these days is not science in any meaningful sense. The Big Bang model is Exhibit A for that proposition.

(Parts of this post were taken from a comment I made on Siegel’s Medium article.)

The Unprincipled Principle & The Persistence of Mistakes

6 Replies

Over at Triton Station, Stacy McGaugh has a series of posts on the recent, and ongoing, successful predictions of MOND at the galactic scale, beginning with the December 31, 2020 post, 25 Years A Heretic, which provides an excellent historical overview of the situation. It is thankfully, solidly couched in empirical observations.

The last two posts in the Comments section of the linked post are by Apass and Phillip Helbig. I had intended to reply to them in a timely fashion but by the time I got around to it the Comment section was closed. Following are the replies I intended to post:

@Apass,

… through what mechanism would this new disk model give rise to the EFE felt by a satellite galaxy isolated by tens of thousands of light years where you cannot invoke anymore viscosity-like effects?

Given that the mechanism through which gravity causes its effects is generally unknown, that’s an odd question. If a theoretical model of disk dynamics limning the mass distribution replicated MOND’s success in describing the rotational curves, I would be surprised if it didn’t also account for the EFE. After all, satellite galaxies are not, by definition, gravitationally isolated from their host galaxy.

The fact that DM didn’t predict the EFE is probably a function of the fact that DM doesn’t successfully predict anything except itself. It is always deployed, as a patch to a failure of an implementation, on significantly larger scales, of the standard gravitational model of the solar system. If the EFE holds up, which I expect it will, there will likely be a concerted effort to post-dict it with DM. This would present an existential problem to the SMoC proponents however, as the EFE overturns the unprincipled Strong Equivalence Principle.

The SEP is not an expression of empirical fact, the way the weak principle of equivalence is (the equality of inertial and gravitational mass); it is little more than an idle conjecture of mathematical convenience, adopted mid-twentieth century, right at the onset of the post-Einsteinian revision of General Relativity.

The SEP is not foundational to the SMoC, but it is well integrated into the mindset of its practitioners and has consequences for the theoretical “study” of theoretical entities like black holes and multibody systems like galaxy clusters. Dispensing with the SEP would, for one thing, mean that cosmologists could now stop believing, contrary to the empirical evidence and GR prediction, that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.

@Phillip Helbig

Note that in the standard cosmological model, only 1920s cosmology is used. Despite the huge amount of high-quality data now available, classical cosmology needs nothing beyond what was known about relativistic cosmology in the 1920s.

Well yes, and that’s why we need a 21st century cosmology with, shall we say, more realistic underpinnings. I really don’t understand why anyone would think clinging to the naive and dubious assumptions of 100 years ago is a scientifically sound approach, especially given the manifest failures of the current model. I understand that the SMoC is graded on the curve, with negative empirical results deeply discounted in favor of theoretical requirements – but still, the model’s defining structural elements all lie totally in the realm of the empirically undetected.

The fact that there appears to be absolutely no interest in revisiting the standard model’s foundational assumptions, even as an exercise in intellectual curiosity, says nothing good about the socio-economic incentives of the modern scientific academy. The Big Bang model is the best possible you say? I would agree, but only with the caveat that it is only so in the context of the model’s essentially pre-modern assumptions. As soon as those are jettisoned, the big bang creation myth will almost certainly become nothing more than a historical curiosity.

A General Critique of The Standard Model of Cosmology (ΛCDM)

2 Replies

Foundational Assumptions

  1. The Cosmos is a singular, unified, simultaneous entity (a Universe) that can be modeled as such using the field equations of General Relativity. This assumption invokes the existence of a universal frame – the FLRW metric, which is antithetical to the foundational premise of Relativity Theory, that a universal frame does not exist. Solving the equations of GR for a universal frame is an oxymoronic exercise. The existence of a universal frame is impossible to empirically verify.
  2. The cause of the observed cosmological redshift is some form of recessional velocity. A recessional velocity produces a redshift, but not all redshifts are caused by recessional velocities. There is no empirical evidence supporting this assumption.

Consequent Supporting Hypotheses

  1. The model Universe had a singular origin – the Big Bang event. The Big Bang is not an observed component of the Cosmos. It is only a model dependent inference.
  2. Subsequent to the Big Bang event, the model Universe underwent an Inflation event driven by an inflaton field. Neither the Inflation event nor the inflaton field are observed components of the Cosmos. They constitute a model dependent hypothesis necessary to reconcile the model with observations.
  3. The Universe is expanding because spacetime is expanding and driving the galaxies apart. There is no evidence for the existence of a substantival spacetime, that is, for the existence of a spacetime that can interact causally with matter and energy. A substantival spacetime, one that can drive the galaxies apart, is not an observed component of the Cosmos.
  4. Dark Matter comprises @ 85% of the total matter content of the model Universe. The only salient characteristic of Dark Matter is that it reconciles the standard model with observations. Dark Matter is not an observed component of the Cosmos.
  5. Dark Energy comprises @ 69% of the matter-energy content of the model Universe. The only salient characteristic of Dark Energy is that it reconciles the standard model with observations. Dark Energy is not an observed component of the Cosmos

Space Cadet

Leave a reply

I have to give Ethan Siegel credit for having fully absorbed the catechism of orthodox cosmology in all its illogical, not to mention, unscientific, glory. Here, for example is a recent Forbes post entitled How Does The Fabric Of Spacetime Expand Faster Than The Speed Of Light? It provides a good illustration of Siegel’s inability to distinguish between the factual, and the unfounded theoretical aspects, of the standard model of cosmology. But then, that’s the nature of the orthodox belief system known, somewhat sarcastically, as the Big Bang.

For instance, the article mentions the maximum light speed in a vacuum but fails to note that the maximum can only be achieved in an inertial frame. Inertial frames are only approximated in physical reality. That little qualification completely unravels this bit of received wisdom:

But light didn’t work that way; it always moves at the same speed through the vacuum of empty space, from every perspective imaginable.

That, in fact, represents a rather monumental failure of the modern cosmological imagination, forsaking as it does, both Einstein’s understanding of Relativity Theory and the observational evidence. Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as “empty space“. But then, facts are optional in the post-empirical realm of theoretical cosmology.

Energy Loss And The Cosmological Redshift

Leave a reply

Modern cosmology has an interesting approach to the question of where the energy lost by light goes as that light becomes redshifted over large cosmological distances. There seem to be several, not entirely coherent ways of approaching the question. Probably the most conventional approach is this, where Ethan Siegel seems to say, a “universal” expansion is causing the energy loss, but at the same time, the energy lost is driving the expansion of the “Universe” :

The photons have an energy, given by a wavelength, and as the Universe expands, that photon wavelength gets stretched. Sure, the photons are losing energy, but there is work being done on the Universe itself by everything with an outward, positive pressure inside of it!

It is all well and good, to claim that mathematically either view is correct, however, physically speaking, either claim is nonsense. One view posits a bounded, constrained, “Universe” against which the contents are doing work by pushing the boundary outward. There is no evidence for this peculiar viewpoint other than you can arrive at it by assuming, without question, certain things the standard model assumes – without question. It is a mathematicist argument with no basis in the physics of observed phenomena.

The other possibility from the mathematicist’s perspective, is that an otherwise imperceptible, but somehow substantive, spacetime is expanding and so stretching the wavelength of the photon. Again, this has no basis in observed phenomena; it is just an appeal to a purely theoretical construct, one which only serves to obscure whatever physics is actually taking place.

So, how can you account for the energy loss of a cosmologically redshifted photon without veering off into the metaphysical nerd-land presented by mathematicism? Simply put, you have to model light emitted from distant sources (galaxies on the cosmological scale) as consisting of expanding spherical wavefronts. Those wavefronts can be thought of as hyperspheres which are related to the mathematical-geometrical concept of a light cone.

The expanding spherical wavefront view of cosmological radiation rests only on the realistic assumption that galaxies radiate omnidirectionally. This is, in terms of modern cosmology, a simplifying assumption, one which eliminates the need for an expanding “Universe”. It is this expanding spherical wavefront phenomenon that has been misinterpreted in the standard model, to imply a “universal” expansion. The only things undergoing expansion in the Cosmos are the expanding spherical wavefronts of light emitted by galaxies.

The theoretical, light cone concept, closely parallels the physical structure of an expanding spherical wavefront considered 4-dimensionally. In the theory of light cones the surface of the light cone is the aggregate of all the hyperspheres which are themselves, sections of the light cone. All of the points on the light cone have no spatial or temporal separation. The 4-dimensional surface of the light cone constitutes a simultaneity – in 4-dimensions.

Deploying this mathematical model in the context of the observed expanding wavefronts suggests that when a 3-dimensional observer interacts with the light cone, at a specific 3-spatial + 1-temporal, dimensional location, the observer is observing the simultaneous state of the entire expanding wavefront, which, in the model, is the state of the hypersphere of the light cone that intersects with the observer’s 3+1-dimensional “now”.

A 3D observer cannot observe the entirety of the 4D light cone, only the portion of hypersphere (spherical wavefront) with which it directly interacts. However since all the points on the hypersphere are identical, information about the state of the hypersphere is available at the point of observation.

At large cosmological distances that wavefront will be observed to be redshifted, reflecting a net energy loss to the spherical wavefront. This energy loss is caused by the wavefront’s encounter with and partial absorption by, all the intervening galaxies (and other matter) encountered over the course of its expansion.

This energy loss can be crudely estimated using the standard General Relativity equation for gravitational redshifting. That, in turn, suggests the possibility that all observed gravitational effects are a consequence of the interaction between 3-dimensional matter and 4-dimensional electromagnetic radiation.

This post is based on a recent Quora answer.

Great Snipe Hunt Continues

Leave a reply

You can always count on Dennis Overbye of the New York Times to run full-tilt with any Big Science (BS) press release that lands in his inbox. The latest example concerns yet another in the ongoing stream of “possible detections” in the unending snipe hunt semi-officially known as the Search for Dark Matter.

Dark matter has been experimentally sought for roughly 40 years; no convincing evidence for its existence has been uncovered in all that time. This latest bit of effusive hype (that emanates, according to Overbye from, …a multinational team of 163 scientists from 28 institutions and 11 countries…), continues the now long string of dark matter non-detections. Supposedly, the experiment under consideration was seeking a certain type of dark matter called WIMPs. The experiment failed in that regard, but hope springs eternal in the Dark Matter community.

In the elaborate and needless to say, expensive, detector, an excess of “events” was observed, which could be, it is now claimed, evidence of “axions“, or maybe another hypothetical, a “neutrino magnetic moment”, or sadly but more prosaically, the presence in undetectable amounts of tritium, a well-known (and observed) isotope of hydrogen.

It should be noted that according to Overbye:

Simulations and calculations suggested that random events should have produced about 232 such recoils over the course of a year.

But from February 2017 to February 2018, the detector recorded 285, an excess of 53 recoils.

This over-represents the excess. The original paper has the expectation value as 232 +/- 15 meaning the excess events only number 38. The 285 total does not constitute direct evidence of anything but the “events” themselves. They constitute the entire data set from a year of observations on a one-off, purpose-built system that has failed in its intended purpose.

So we have a paucity of irreplicable evidence being repurposed to justify some spare theoretical fantasies that just happen be lying around unused in in the back corner of some dusty theoretical broom closet. On the other hand, “…tritium contamination will just be one more detail that has to be considered or calibrated in future detectors“. Another day, another retrenchment.

The overall effort here is of a piece with the Higgs boson “detection” at the Large Hadron Collider and the gravitational wave “detections” at LIGO. It is nothing but an exercise in data manufacturing and manipulation as substitute for empirical science. It is the essence of BS, and this science by committee approach continues to make a mess of modern physics.

As to the perpetual snipe hunt, there is one clear message being delivered to the BS community by physical reality. It was as true 40 years ago as it is today: That Dark Matter shit ain’t here! When this simple fact is going to penetrate the thick wall of mathematicism shielding theoretical physicists from reality, however, is a question that only future historians will be able to answer.