Sunday, May 31, 2009


Wondrous Kea has spent the last week in a cosmology conference at Perimeter Institute in Ontario. She links to Glenn Starkman's talk, If the CMB is right, it is inconsistent with standard inflationary Lambda CDM. Starkman has been a voice crying out in the wilderness, pointing out that the inflationary paradigm is ruled out by both COBE and WMAP experiments. Here is the data graph, this time from David Spergel of the WMAP team. Even those people are asking whether the Universe is finite after all.

According to the inflationary paradigm, the Universe was initially small but expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. Today it would be flat, like Earth. Density fluctuations would be the same at all scales. Reality intrudes: fluctuations are nearly zero beyond 60 degrees. This indicates curvature in the Universe as surely as a ship's sails disappearing over the horizon.

Why does this graph not get more attention? Physicists blindly follow the epicycles of inflated LCDM because no alternatives have been presented to them. In the past those alternatives had difficulty even getting published. The world is changing, and people are starting to wonder whether the Universe is curved or the speed of light can change. The data is consistent with a Universe of radius R = ct. Theory also predicts 4.507034% baryons and 23.87% dark mass, precisely as found by WMAP. A growing body of evidence supports the most surprising prediction, a changing speed of light.

Labels: ,


Blogger nige said...

Thanks for that link to Starkman's paper. Your analysis is that c is the time dependent variable in GM = tc^3, thus c = (GM/t)^{1/3}. Thus the velocity of light is slowing down inversely as the cube-root of the age of the universe.

What you miss out from your post is what the mechanism is that you have which replaces inflation. I'm going to assume that your mechanism is that your varying velocity of light dictates the expansion rate of the universe, and since your model is that light was faster in the past, the universe was able to expand faster in the past, too.

Thus in the past, the velocity of light and the expansion rate of the universe would have been much greater.

So what you are doing is replacing Alan Guth's inflation theory in which faster-than-light expansion occurs at the end of the supposed grand unification epoch, 10^{-36} second after the big bang or so, with a variable light theory in which faster-than-current-velocity-of-light occurs at all times in the past. So your model of why the universe was very flat when radiation decoupled from matter at 400,000 years when the CBR originated, is a bit like inflation in that the universe inflated very rapidly in the past when the universe was of uniform density. As a result, the uniform density expanded everywhere before gravity had time to clump matter together into lumps, so the CBR is extremely uniform on large scales over the sky (particularly beyond 60 degrees solid angle from observer).

The failure of the mainstream Lambda-CDM model is documented by Richard Lieu, Physics Department, University of Alabama, ‘Lambda-CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?’,

Even Einstein grasped the possibility that general relativity's lambda-CDM model is at best just a classical approximation to quantum field theory, at the end of his life when he wrote to Besso in 1954:

‘I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the [classical differential equation] field principle, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, [non-quantum] gravitation theory included ...’

It's a pity we disagree about what the variable in the equation GM = tc^3 is. However, it is great that you are challenging the mainstream inflationary theory error, which is religious dogma.

10:46 PM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Thanks nige, we do agree on most things, from c or G changing to the lunacy of the UK government. Lieu is another voice crying into the wilderness, I should mention him soon.

3:24 PM  
Blogger Sean said...

I used to think that Quantum physics was made up, to expain that you can see through shadows? Or did they unwittingly make up the history of quantum physics, just in case anybody noticed that on the moon photos, you can see through shadows?

10:53 AM  
Blogger nige said...

Hi Qubit,

Planck had to introduce quantum theory in order to explain the blackbody radiation spectrum curve which doesn't go to infinity at high frequencies which classical theory predicted; and Bohr had to introduce quantized orbits to explain observed line spectra.

The trouble was started by Ernest Rutherford's impatient and insulting letter to Niels Bohr dated 20 March 1913, where Rutherford stated:

“There appears to me one grave difficulty in your hypothesis which I have no doubt you fully realize [conveniently not mentioned in your paper], namely, how does an electron decide with what frequency it is going to vibrate at when it passes from one stationary state to another? It seems to me that you would have to assume that the electron knows beforehand where it is going to stop.”

(Quotation from: A. Pais, “Inward Bound: Of Matter and Forces in the Physical World”, 1985, page 212.)

Rutherford made two errors here.

1. New correct theories will introduce anomalies at first, until a lot more research is sponsored to sort out the problems. E.g., Dalton's theory that all atoms were composed of integer masses was ridiculed and rejected at first because the mass of chlorine is 35.5 times that of hydrogen. Later, it became clear that chlorine contains istotopes with the same basic chemistry (the same number of protons and electrons) but differing numbers of neutrons.

2. The real reason why electrons 'know' when to stop radiating (i.e., when they are in the ground state), is simply that all electrons in the universe radiate and exchange gauge boson radiation with one another. This radiation constitutes the electric fields around charges. Because they are all radiating, achieve equilibrium and radiate as much energy as they receive when in thr ground state!

Rutherford by similar "reasoning" could have also denied Prevost's 1792 thermodynamic discovery that hot objects forever radiate, by claiming that if this were so, the ground would freeze! Once a hot object has cooled to the same temperature as the surroundings, its temperature can't decrease any further due to its continued emission of radiation, because it then receives back from the surroundings radiation at the same rate that it emits radiation!

Bohr used wavefunction collapse to oppose realism in nature, but Dr Thomas S. Love of California State University emailed me the following:

‘The quantum collapse [in the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics, where a wavefunction collapse occurs whenever a measurement of a particle is made] occurs when we model the wave moving according to Schroedinger (time-dependent) and then, suddenly at the time of interaction we require it to be in an eigenstate and hence to also be a solution of Schroedinger (time-independent). The collapse of the wave function is due to a discontinuity in the equations used to model the physics, it is not inherent in the physics.’

Caroline H. Thompson of University of Wales, Aberystwyth, stated in

‘In some key Bell experiments, including two of the well-known ones by Alain Aspect, 1981-2, it is only after the subtraction of ‘accidentals’ from the coincidence counts that we get violations of Bell tests. The data adjustment, producing increases of up to 60% in the test statistics, has never been adequately justified.'

‘The story, as you may have realised, is that there is no evidence for any quantum weirdness: quantum entanglement of separated particles just does not happen. This means that the theoretical basis for quantum computing and encryption is null and void. .... the funding for it is being received under false pretences.’

Editorial policy of the American Physical Society journals (including PRL and PRA):

“This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics.”

12:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page