requires a tolerance for ambiguity.”
– Carl Sagan
Every other year a new dimension is discovered in the curiously inscrutable depths of theoretical physics. We purportedly know how old the Universe is and how it began even though proven physics has yet to corroborate our claims. Fanciful speculation takes us to increasingly intricate and mysterious suppositions. I would like to return to Earth; to what we have proven to ourselves; to the fundamentals which began and sustain the modern scientific era.
There are actually two parts to what we call “modern science.” One part is proven and consists of laws and postulates that have been shown to be true countless times. The other part is speculative, not proven and not necessarily valid. Of course one person’s proof doesn’t always convince others and a proof is only as good as the laws, definitions, and experimental data it relies on.
Theoretical Physics, for the past hundred years, has said that if a radio signal or beam of light is sent through a vacuum, it always travels at the same speed (c = the speed of light in a vacuum). Its wavelength changes depending on its speed relative to a receptor, its relative local distances and times also change, but its speed is said to be constant even if source and destination are moving relative to each other. This creates, among other things, an anomaly in physics where vector arithmetic no longer works and where, for the first time in science, a speed is not relative but absolute.
The physics community reached this conclusion when the data for near vacuum didn’t match their expectations. Whatever way they oriented their apparatus, they got essentially the same speed. This wasn’t the expected result. After two years of intense study, Michelson and Morley, a team of error theory experts, published data which erred significantly from the actual speed of light in a vacuum. The problem, as I see it, was that a vacuum and a near vacuum are completely different. As the theory of relativity included the proven equivalence of energy and matter, both parts gained acceptance though few understood the complex details.
The theoretical physics community also defined time as the reading on a cesium clock, assuming that this clock was always accurate. When, in 1957, one clock sent on a relativistic journey deviated from a relatively stationary twin, they concluded that time has “paths” rather than that conditions interfered with the accuracy of their clock.
And, when astronomers discovered a more-or-less universal correlation between the distance to stars, galaxies, and globular clusters and the amount absorption lines are shifted from their normal position in the light spectrum, the Big Bang theory was concocted to explain this phenomenon.
THE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLE OF PROVEN SCIENCE
Except for entropy and boundary conditions, the laws of Physics are all equivalences. The energy+matter in any experiment remains the same. Even the equation E=mc2 maintains an equivalence between before and after an atomic reaction. In all of physics, nothing is created or destroyed; merely transformed or transferred and always at or adjacent to its previous location. Matter, it turns out, might be considered just another form of energy.
Chemistry is even more restrictive in that the total energy (including bonding energy) at the end of a reaction precisely equals the initial total energy. The number of atoms and even the number of electrons remain unchanged.
In both sciences, nothing is created or destroyed; only rearranged or reallocated.
These laws have created “The Age of Science.” There hasn’t been one repeatable unequal experiment. Except for boundary conditions, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to find an unequal equation in science. These physical laws persist and continue to be verified.
Given the equivalent nature of real science, there isn’t room for magic or miracles in the physical world of chemistry or physics. Nothing can be put there that wasn’t there before and everything that was there before is still there in one form or another. We can pretend otherwise, but the physical laws of the Universe — as we know them today — appear to preclude anything else happening in actual fact.
When I look at the basics of physics and chemistry, I see an ordered and relatively stable universe where everything in one microsecond of time still exists in the next microsecond of time. Each subatomic particle, each atom, each electron, each bit of energy is accounted for and what was before still exists in a slightly altered, moved or rearranged configuration with slightly increased entropy. Nothing is actually destroyed without something else which is equivalent being created. Likewise, nothing changes location except through continuous, contiguous movement.
Likewise, nothing is created that wasn’t there before, though it may have different form or character.
NEGATIVE MATTER AND ANTIMATTER
To get around this equivalence throughout proven science, theoretical physics invented the concept of negative matter: matter with negative mass. Negative matter presumably repels matter but attracts other negative matter. If negative matter and matter came into contact, they might annihilate each other with no energy being created. Unfortunately, after 100 years of trying, we’ve been unable to observe or create any negative matter.
What we have created is “antimatter”; in particular, anti-particles which annihilate common particles of opposite electrical charge releasing a great deal of energy and therefore still conserving energy+matter.
And it has been fairly well-proven that when we take heat energy away from matter, we get closer and closer to 0 degrees Kelvin but we never reach zero heat, let alone negative heat. We’ve never found ANY negative matter OR energy and we’ve been looking for it for about a century!
THE BIG BANG
When Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift in which astronomers see a general correlation between distances to astronomical objects and shifting emission lines toward lower frequencies, we assumed this meant that the further away an object was, the faster it was traveling away from us.
From this assumption, we created the Big Bang Theory where one improbable explanation (Creation 6000 years ago) was replaced with another improbable explanation (Creation 13.8 billion years ago).
The Big Bang Theory, however, violates proven laws of physics. In addition to postulating the spontaneous emergence of everything from nothing through an unknown process which goes against the basic understanding from which science emerged, the Big Bang Theory also seriously violates the law of increasing entropy.
Astronomy suggests a homogenous expansion somewhat like bread dough rising whereas the separation of matter and negative matter would presumably create a different pattern with large exclusion zones where like attracts like and where matter and negative matter repel each other. The pattern we see is nothing like the “explosion” we expected, yet we keep trying to make the data fit our expectations.
We have no proof that anything can be created from nothing, let alone everything. The laws which form the foundations of the physical sciences preclude the possibility. I don’t have the answer, but I do know that Big Bang speculations have no grounding in proven science. If the amount of energy+matter in the Universe is stable now, one might have started with the assumption that it was stable thirteen or fourteen billion years ago.
We don’t even know if the red shift seen in every direction is an indicator of actual motion. An alternative explanation might be that light energy dissipates slightly when traveling immense distances over billions of years through interstellar space. This possibility explains our data much better than the Big Bang Theory. This might, in turn, lead us to speculate that we see only the visible Universe and that this may be but a small fraction of the complete Universe.
Furthermore, the farther out we look out into space, the older the light we are seeing. What we see near the limits of visibility are galaxies and superclusters that were 26 billion light-years apart 13 billion years ago, which suggest a universe as far as we can see in any direction direction we look when the Big Bang was supposed to have happened.
We invented the most accurate clock known and then defined time by it. This, in turn, led to a split in our thinking. On one hand we had a continuous and universal history of time between “The Big Bang” and the Universe as it exists now. On the other hand, each and every piece of the Universe, both big and small had a “path” through “time” that was unique. This other time ceased to preserve order, symmetry, or equality. While individual “paths” put each and every atom at a unique “time” (stellar explosions being the vehicle for creating all the higher elements), when they are brought together, they still act in complete synchronicity – which is a vital aspect of time.
What if cesium clocks are inaccurate under relativistic influences? What if time doesn’t follow “paths”? If every experiment, every chemical, Newtonian or atomic reaction, maintains equivalence of matter plus energy, then each component of the Universe must precisely map a nanosecond later to a displaced, rearranged and/or altered but precisely equivalent component in the precisely equivalent subsequent Universe. In any volume of space, however defined, the total energy+matter at one time precisely equals the total energy+matter at any other time after eliminating changes due to things entering and leaving the region. This happens only if time is consistent and pervasive.
Isn’t time an ordering function which measures durations in which changes to equivalent matter/energy take place as well as being a component of that energy? The fact that theoretical physicists define time by these clocks doesn’t convince me because the physical laws under which we live imply a single place for everything and everything in its place for each equal nanosecond. Time provides order and implacable, unvarying sequencing for both segments of the universe as well as its entirety.
Furthermore, time is a component of energy as well, so the variability of time and the invariability of synchronicity seem mutually exclusive.
The Universe might have a now which encompasses everything, including black holes. The energy and matter of that now would be transformed according to the rules of physics and chemistry into the equivalent energy and matter of a new now that again encompasses everything. In this view of the Universe, there are no shorter or longer paths through time. Time maps one entire physical Universe through contiguous physical movements and transformations to another full and equal physical Universe. In this view, there are no wormholes or shortcuts or time travel other than lock step in the forward direction or vicariously looking back at ancient starlight. Any physical time travel other than what we experience each and every day violates the laws we have discovered and verified as well as violating the logic of cause and effect. Time travel is likely an imaginary concept only, rife with logical contradictions and inexplicable anomalies.
Gravity wells of black holes and nearly black holes appear to interact with outside gases and stars in real time and not in a time frame attached to ancient history or ancient positions. The gravity is clearly now, not then. Finally, since the laws of physics require a steady amount of energy+matter, any energy escaping into our time frame from another time frame would violate this requirement as would matter or energy moving in the opposite direction.
Travel to distant stars may always be slow and arduous because there might be no shortcuts, no ways to outsmart the physical properties of each molecule of matter/energy and its unique contiguous placement in the Universe for each contiguous moment in time. There may be no way to outsmart the laws of physics which require sending something hurtling in the opposite direction in order to produce acceleration. I could be wrong, but the laws of physics as I understand them preclude a lot of what is commonly assumed today, taught in schools and shown in movies and television as if it were fact or inevitable future.
It may well be that time pervades everything equally and universally.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT
When unpolarized light is sent through a polarizing filter, the parallel component of the light energy is re-emitted with a single polarized direction. This can’t be the same photons because only a small percentage were oriented in this precise direction whereas the light emerging from a polarizing filter has fifty percent of the original light energy, all of which is polarized in the same direction. If another filter is added at right angles to the first, the rest of the light will be entirely blocked. However, if an intermediate filter is inserted between the perpendicular filters at any intermediate angle, some light gets through all three filters. The only reasonable explanation is re-emission of light energy.
Likewise, interference patterns can also be explained by re-emission of electromagnetic energy. Since light is continuously creating and destroying perpendicular electric and magnetic fields, it seems reasonable that when these fields meet with the electromagnetic field of electrons surrounding an atomic nucleus, the re-emission of the next field might be significantly influenced by interactions.
Looking at light in this way shows that measuring the true velocity of a photon is difficult because electromagnetic energy is readily influenced by its environment.
Two or three generations have now been brought up in the tradition of shrinking distance and time with the only constant being an inviolate ratio of the two.
Why would a ratio stay constant when its components are variable? Why would vector arithmetic fail in extreme conditions? Vectors not adding correctly might be considered mathematical proof that something is wrong with modern theoretical physics.
The speed of light may be a ratio of units of relative distance and relative time which are not altered by relative velocity. It may be that light traveling toward us at relative speeds less than c, encounters a molecule nearby, re-emits with a frequency which preserves energy and waveform, and careens off at a speed relative to the molecule most recently encountered.
All speeds may be relative, even speeds near 186,282 miles per second. Light may speed up or slow down when encountering a new frame of reference and this may account for the frequency shifts.
And there may be an alternative explanation for the pervasive loss of energy from extremely distant light sources. Tiny variations in energy due to some other improbable occurrence may explain this loss of energy instead of the relative motion of its source.
Have we tried to create speeds faster than light in a vacuum? A high-speed, low-pressure wind tunnel might shed some light onto these speculations. At least speeds upwind might possibly be slower than speeds downwind. This can be tested!
The absence of both doubt and proof persuade me to question whether theoretical physics is science at all. Doubters aren’t welcomed. When I try to talk to physicists about a different model for the Universe, it appears beyond their ability to entertain the details of a differing view, an alternate explanation. That theoretical physics could be wrong appears inconceivable to many.
There are other possibilities. Half lives may not be constant under relativistic influences. Energized particles may decay slower. Cesium clocks may be inaccurate under relativistic influences, their frequency altered by increased mass/energy.
Consider, if you will, a Universe with three dimensions and an ordering function, time, which places equivalent versions of these three-dimensional Universes in contiguous order according to increasing entropy as well as being a component of all energy. There might be four dimensions and the unidirectional fourth dimension, time, might order the other three precisely and consistently. Vectors and matrices accurately describe this Universe.
We have failed to preserve scientific discipline. We defined “time” to make things easier rather than to make our science more rigorous. We have gotten carried away postulating a Creation billions of years in the past that violates the fundamental rules of our Universe today and is inconsistent with astronomical observations rather than admitting, “We do not know!”
©David N. Dodson, September, 2015, Phoenix, AZ