Cosmic Concerns - Theories of CosmologyCosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology
Cosmic Concerns - Theories of CosmologyCosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology
Argument for the Big Appearance Universe
The previous essays have reviewed, criticized or questioned different aspects of a BB - Big bang, and a BC - Big crunch or cyclic HBN universe. This exercise exposed some of their strong points, differences and shortcomings particularly against some arbitrary reality check and not just high powered mathematical manipulations. This essay alludes to a third model of the universe, not the BB, BC but the BA - Big Appearance - why the universe appears to look like aspects of the other two. Foremost this conceptual name is based on an inside-out look at what we know & observe rather than the top-down approach of the other two. It is set in a Newtonian-Euclidian framework for Mass/Energy/Space or in acronym a NEMES universe. It is not non-relativistic but interpreted with broader mechanistic views which include it. In a way it is a TOE -Theory of Everything, but not of forces & particles but a TOTEMS - a Theory of Time, Energy, Mass & Space. But enough of 'handles' and how do the popular cosmos concepts translate into these appearances?
First what is meant by different mathematical ways of viewing the Universe, outside-in vs inside- out? It?s not that different as far as trying to include all observational determinations. One as a whole, like a single entity and as cosmologists essentially do, establishing cosmological constants, mass deficiencies and alternatives such as dark matter to complete a concern for closure. This approach is rife with effect (force) over distance, a bane of scientific philosophy. Another view would be to treat it as a composite of independent minute little cubes of space, having a set of characteristics and only cognizant of similar cubes immediately adjacent, in effect every point looking outward, including as much as possible and leave the fuzzy edges out in the distance. So where to start?
Biorate as a determinate of time in the Universe.
Time is elusive. We like to keep track of it. We have many types of clocks but they are not all equally precise or commensurate. Let me make a case for one that might be the least accurate but most comprehensive. Call it ‘Biorate’ and try to determine what it might reveal about any other method of accounting time. It is essentially, our life rate, 60 heartbeats/sec at rest, maybe 150 jogging with all kinds of other variations based on age, health, etc. Can anything so casual tell us something about time in the universe?
Amusingly and historically, originally lifetimes is how time measure started: A begot B, and B begot C, etc. Then came celestial or mechanical clocks for seasons and months or shorter intervals of days and seconds, better but faulty with pressure/ temperature and other physical variations until last century brought in Atomic clocks using emission frequencies - the most accurate today. To this list let me add two oddities - Nuclear clocks - here meaning the statistical half-life of radioactive isotopes - the reason later, and the Velocity of light (Voc) - absolutely constant like no clock at all. It’s the diabolical nature of the last entry that justifies going back to the former. And all together this array of clocks will serve as an inquiry into time in the universe.
The Equivalence Principle is also relevant but in a slightly expanded way. Einstein’s idea establishes that there is no instantaneous experiment for an observer (a Biorate) to distinguish between his state in a gravitational field from that in an accelerating platform. And added here, there is no difference in environments of no gravitational field, no accelerating platform or at any fixed velocity state. But in all these cases, Biorate will measure Voc a constant for the observer and his clocks - Mechanical, Atomic, Nuclear will tick equivalently with their previous accountable shortcomings.
Biorate is the preferred reference because with different experiments we can determine or imagine, that all these clocks change under different circumstances and only an observer in his immediate or larger environment can judge what indeed might be changing as compared to what another observer elsewhere and in communication with him is observing. Known today are four different biorate environments; Empty space, a Gravity environment, a Velocity environment and an Accelerating one. An earthling is not quite in empty space but a lot closer to it than any known high-gravity environment. So too, with ultra precision instruments, a person has flown around the globe to officially enter the velocity environment. Beyond human, this can be extrapolated to high velocity effects in the case of meson decay. Their decay half-lives are equivalently extended at near Voc velocities, a separate type of clock but an awesome mental realization on the consistent nature of things.
Predicated on many factors, I have previously asserted that ‘now’ is a universal reality and consequently time is quite relative to it depending on the observers environment just as Voc = k within it. Reiterating the definition, ‘now’ is a singularity, a stress in space, and universal, uniquely marked by the only place change can occur and be observable, as are its rates of change. Delays associated with getting the word out on some event are not relevant and a mere complication of postal recalcitrance or space-time calculations. So how can we deal with Biorate and different universe environments? Here I will try graphically to show observers in some better known examples and a few we might have to conjecture upon. In Fig. 1, Biorate is shown as a consistent duration on a linear surface, x=y, in any arbitrary magnitude, with pie slices identifying consecutive delta’s between a Now1, Now2, and Now3 lines for all clock rates, with examples of different observers with some meaningful time deltas between them. This pie can have as many slices as you wish, here shown about 30o each or 12 per circle and from there an endless Archimedes or Slinky spiral, one upon the other. Within this we can discuss six different observers, labeled A thru H.
Trace A is our reference observer, earthling if you wish. For all practicable purposes there is no trace along the radius outside this. Our gravity from a relativistic viewpoint is negligible. If we say these deltas between "nows" are a second long or a lifetime long, all other observers inside will have shorter deltas from the earthling viewpoint or more frequent equivalent nows within theirs. Now, let's compare.
Observer B resides in a high gravity environment, a lot worse than some imaginary surface of Jupiter, maybe as hellacious as the surface of a neutron star. Between the reference Nows are smaller segments of his time - eg. his clocks run slower including the transmittable one of the frequency of his Atomic clock. Our earthling could measure how much slower. No two ways about it, his clock has less ticks over the long haul. But woe to B, in fact, only his Atomic clock can and does survive in this example of some heavy astronomical object. But wait.
Observer C is the notorious space-twin. He starts from A’s position. His transition to B requires acceleration but is usually ignored in calculations, until he is at the equivalent velocity to give the same time dilation effects as B and then ages say half the rate as the stay-at-home. One way he could know this difference is by communication with his earthling brother. If a long trip, C would conclude that he outlived A by a factor of two, eg. if A lived 2 pie slices he lived 4 slices. This is all pretty routine space-time mechanics, now lets get into the heavier thought experiments.
Observer D is the accelerating twin. We could start him off anywhere on the radius but will give him a trace inside of B for a little more room. As he accelerates toward the Voc his relative measure of time expands/decreases as you prefer to infinitudes until, and here we meet Observer E at the circle origin, and becomes Einstein's dream of riding a photon or wavelength at Voc. This is a significant claim of the relativistic view. Einstein thought he could transverse the universe in an instant as such a photon-wave-rider but his instant or relativistic ‘now’ must be subdivided into 30 Byrs of earthly ‘nows’. Here is where we can’t have it both ways. Beside being quite imaginary and confusing, it is analogous to Zeno’s Hare & Tortoise race, one closing at 2v, the other at 1v and an infinite number of subdivisions to the end. They keep mathematically going like the Energizer bunny, but in reality the race is long over, actually 2000 years ago. We see the same problems in interpretations of Black hole encounters, pretending the mathematical infinitudes have meaning. In a universal ‘now’ time they don’t. Can we explain these irregularities?
There is one possible explanation. We are coming from and biased by two facts associated with the famous Michelson-Morley Voc null experiment of 1887: the Voc is always a constant and space is absolutely void. While Einstein addressed this and modified physics with Relativity, and presently the Big bang concept carries the Voc = k back to the beginning of time, many things have changed since those early determinations. While Voc is always measured a constant within Biorate, we see Biorate can vary four different ways within the Equivalence Principle. And Space is no longer a void but filled with micro-macro manifestations from virtual to dark & negative mass-energy apparitions hence ultimately space is some kind of something.
So the last example observer is H, the dotted line and the Hubble possibility. If indeed time in space ran slower in a distant past and faster in some distant future could we tell? Only comparatively but would have to trade off against another variable such as expanding space. In the diagram it is shown in one delta as inside the reference A and outside in the next segment. Ironically, this in itself would satisfy the recent Accelerating universe concept derived from dimming distant 1A Nova observations. Slower running can be interchangeable with dimmer (redshift vs brightness vs distance). How might it be differently judged? A number of ways.
As we observe it, the universe in depth is declared ‘flat’, hence linear and not distorted. Linear is great for calculational simplicity but easily obscures multiple variables. For example, the Hubble effect is interpreted as expansion of space from earlier times. It could well be a combination of variable space and variable time or time alone. Which is the more realistic variable? I’m not sure but personally have a few objections to the claim of an Accelerating universe. First is the absurdity of the flip-flop from the previous decelerating universe. How bad can your conceptual math be? Another, beside the notion of space expanding between galaxies (increasing in size some 259 times since the universe was 1 second old) that something in space is causing a higher rate of expansion (in contrast to the galaxies gravitational affinity toward each other). Who is doing what to whom?
So while I might say Biorate is not a constant in a larger universe, I would catch hell trying to say the same thing about the Voc, but here it is. Just as I can’t imagine an accelerating space expansion, let alone not sure of the linear one, I can better perceive a ‘slower then’ environment of an ancient 1A supernova compared to one in a modern ‘space now’ than an imaginary force expanding something ‘not there’ faster. So in that sense, within all these complications, it does matter if Voc does vary between observers.
The equivalence of Mass, Energy & Space
But there is more to say concerning Voc and Equivalence concepts. It is intended that this discussion not specifically identify one organizational mass system over another. Rather one idea may resonate to aspects of a solar system, another more akin to atomic structure or maybe remotely to the distinctly non-mass/gravity character of electromagnetics. The starting point is that these diverse elements interact, are created, modified and destroyed with the same well known conservation rules. The subtlety of quarks, electrons, nucleons and planets are not argued accept in that they have analogs with all mass systems.
However as an approach Maxwell’s principles are an accounting system framed in a metric space, very applicable to any active substance within it. It can measure flow dynamics from a static density or a density gradient over some distance, and to define circular flow within (curl or spin) and divergence (linear density flow) in and out of such a system. This accounting is the basis of electromagnetics with electric charge the dynamic fluid. Suggested here, if there is one single entity, it is some dynamic space fabric substance and that in composite it could have a similar accountability for the more complex mass, energy, space interactions we normally observe under other discipline rules.
If a geologist, a chemist and a nuclear physicist were put in one room, it might take a while to find some commonality in the quite foreign languages they individually use. This review is not to slight these differences but recognize appropriate analogs, particularly across a spectrum of different historically developed views of nature
How can we say Mass, Energy and Space (Space fabric) are all some equivalent substance but in different ways and interactions? First, E = mc2 says that whatever the substance of mass and energy, they are proportional, and noted here, both inherently tied to a specific space that proportionally varies as the fundamental relaxation constant, the Voc in that space. The main theme is that these ratios of substance while consistent locally also vary regionally.
Now back to the undefined substance. That substance has a dynamic, the space fabric. Space is the base level for that dynamic. It may have more or less from one locale to another - some density, but empty space has no curl or divergence of that density, eg. there is no movement or curl of that movement inherent in it.
Energy is a pulse or wave of that dynamic that propagates thru space at the relaxation rate of the space density and that rate slows in a locale of greater density. It has no curl per se but does have a quantum of linear divergence. If two such energy packages traveling in opposite directions coalesce, that divergence is now confined, typically capturing some curl and becomes a net substance increase to that local space - that effect creates an affinity of one denser space (now a mass) for another. A large accumulation of these mass units create a space gradient but with no inherent curl or divergence of substance outside some radius of that association. However within such systems curl or divergence may be prominent, eg. planetary orbits and solar radiance respectively.
While Mass as a cohesive package of substance is much greater than the substance of space it occupies, there is no specific delineation of one from the other. Nor is that the end of it. To incorporate velocity as part of that mass package, there must be a contained linear divergence of substance retained with the mass over time as it migrates thru space with its velocity proportional to that divergence package. It interacts and modifies the space quiescence as it passes thru. If traversing from one density space to another but different, it exchanges substance to the local space either increasing or decreasing velocity (kinetic energy) or net substance (potential energy). Mass at a high velocity (greater KE) or in a high space density environment (greater PE) are equivalent phenomena in which Biorate is slower. Yet the Biorate equation with its Voc = k, is always balanced.
The Equivalence Principle equates gravity with acceleration. This is an equivalence of forces but not effect. Resistance to gravity yields a force to maintain a static potential energy of mass in a specific space density gradient while on the other hand, an applied force of acceleration is increasing the kinetic energy in an otherwise static space density. It's not equivalent over time as Biorate is steady in one and slowing in the other as velocity increases. The other equivalence question is why Biorate in a higher gravity environment is similar to a Biorate at some higher steady velocity. In the later case, in some way, the accumulated KE of velocity equates to and while transient, still acts like a space density increase. In summary, these are basic relative mechanical interchanges between mass, energy and space to keep E = mc2 and Voc = k within any given Biorate space dynamic environment. From here it must be kept in mind, space has two features of one substance, one density and the other gradient of that density over distance. In effect there is no separate gravity field, rather any locale with these features behaves equivalently as a gravity field. Compared to a Relativistic expanded space-time (where radiation follows a straight path in a distorted geometric), radiation is refracted and slowed in an unmodified metric space. The action is there, inherent in the space fabric, not in a separate field applied from elsewhere.
Now on to the tougher questions in cosmology and if there are more such features within the same accepted substance. If mass and space have an equivalence of substance, can space itself take on a mass manifestation over large areas of different space density? And similarly does it take time to stabilize one area with another and if so what are the push-pull directions and relaxation rates. Could this mean a galactic environment has a hidden mass (dark matter) over that in intergalactic space? Does galactic space draw on empty space or does one hold out over the other over time? Answers here could correspond to other cosmologic concepts of time and space expansion.
Again, if mass and space are related to what extremes of density do their separate roles disfunction? Are there limitations to mass accumulations and or condensed mass order as dynamically observed in stellar collapses and statically as in or near Black holes? What becomes of mass lost in such transitions? In these transient cases could there be a 'space density' divergence without the normal mass or energy manifestations containing it? Could a supernova be greater than just a mass , energy explosion but also include space density substance divergence. As a mass accelerates in static space it gains kinetic energy, conversely would mass take on kinetic energy (absorb and accelerate) if it found itself in such a divergent space density? Would mass expelled rapidly from one to a very different lower space density inject a surplus space substance divergence as it equilibrates, eg. In such turbulent systems would standard mechanisms appear not to be conserved ?
While part of these interactions are routine mechanics, the fact that these proportional interactions follow from the Equivalence Principle is a form of proof why all these things are consistent from our Biorate platform but not equal otherwise. There is two other concerns. Interpolation of these space substance features then requires a recognition that literally everything we deem a measured quantify must readjust in a new environment. As an example particles and their respective gluons are not entities free of space but also proportional to it. Mathematically this is a complexity greater than many Relativistic views but only recognition of the idea is essential. More importantly, does it marshal a broader understanding of the diverse phenomena about us? Secondly, extrapolation of these same features then offer opportunities to explain some of the exotic observations of the larger cosmos similarly without invoking the undetected and some present day ad hoc features such as dark matter and negative energies.
Evolution in the Universe
The fundamental element of time is change, within that concept change can be cyclic or evolutionary or a combination of both. Entropy is also considered an essential part but this can be elusive if all conditions are not known and there is plenty of things being static, inert or subject only to quantum change over endless time. Yet there are myriad examples that we and the universe evolves.
Of the three models discussed the Big bang is the most evolutionary for everything, particularly because of starting from scratch, yet much still conjectural and inherently unobservable. It is a hotbed of mathematical fantasies. The H-B-N model is a good deal more questionable on the modes of its evolutionary nature but introduces a great cyclicity which might bypass some evolution but more importantly, avoids a scratch start. Different aspects of these have been discussed earlier. If the Big Appearance has any merit, it must also contribute to the evolutionary picture.
Positive evolution and entropy might be considered the norm. A major question in cyclicity is the negative notion of perpetual motion or lack of running down. In part this can be offset in the interchangeability of stress vs strain, potential vs kinetic energy as in a pendulum but to what scale and knowledge would this be evident? As noted, if there is a substantial space and it differs from place to place or over time and could harbor such appearances as dark matter or negative energy, this leaves a lot of room, and to me a lot more realistic, for no more than simple concepts of stress and strain in the space fabric, and some kind of mass accumulation and recycle, in a universe that may presently appear to be expanding but overall is quite infinite already and in various stages of interaction on a truly grand scale.
How important is all this. Many philosophic cosmologists get sentimental about the fate of the universe, having either a cold death vs heat death - endless expansion vs a crunch and how this relates to a finality of human existence. In the Big bang this is stretched out to 10100 years while maybe only 1011 years to the next cycle of the H-B-N universe. I can't get excited with either compared to the few 100's of years of modern exposure of civilization to failure and maybe less than 10 to my own personal extinction. And in a way on many time scales, every individual should be happy he wasn't around a lot sooner and again in many ways might have been lucky to have seen the best of it.
Cosmic Concerns - Theories of CosmologyCosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology