Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Existence: an expanding Universe w/a big bang?

Rate this topic


jbw

Recommended Posts

Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with the axiom that "Existence Exists.". Astronomers/Cosmologists define existence as the Observable Universe, comprised of some 200 billion galaxies with average sizes similar to the Milky Way, embedded in a space (Universe) that is supposedly expanding, as determined by the red-shift in the light from these galaxies. Extrapolating backward some 15 billion years indicates that all these galaxies would have been in one place about then and that a monstruous explosion (The Big Bang) occurred at that time which sent the primordial mass (The Primordial Egg) on its way to form the galaxies we see today. Scientists rationalize a bit but their fundamental conclusion is that a Creation event occurred at that time, Creation defined as getting something from nothing.

Our Objectivist philosopher's, in answer to the question "What lies beyond the Observable Universe?" quote the non-answer "There is no 'beyond" beyond." Curved Space (?) is invoked. All seem content with the notion of an Expanding Universe but none are willing to go back to the Big Bang era when, if we accept the current scientific dogma, an act of creation occurred.

Objective Reality precludes creation of something from nothing, of course, and even precludes the notion of no "beyond" beyond the edge of the Observable Universe. To so claim is to envision galaxies galore and suddenly, after a bit of travel, reaching a place of "Nothingness", i.e., a place where Something is juxtaposed to Nothing. The axiomatic concept of "Esistence" does not allow for non-existence, a state of nothingness. There can only be Existence. "Non-existence" and "Nothing" are meaningless anti-concepts.

But we find our Objectivist leaders blithely accepting the mysticism of the scientists where, instead, they should be pointing out the contradiction. Obviously, the error must be in the current hypothesis of an expanding universe and big bang, and in the belief that our observable universe has an edge. Non-acceptance of these notions allows us to conclude that the Universe is infinite and has existed for an eternity. The physicists of Cosmology should set about to discover it.

?????

Jim Wright

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curved Space (?) is invoked.
Where in the world did you get that idea from? It's simply untrue. Objectivism has no position on that issue
All seem content with the notion of an Expanding Universe but none are willing to go back to the Big Bang era when, if we accept the current scientific dogma, an act of creation occurred.
But there is no such current scientific dogma. The idea of creating something from nothing is not part of the scientific theory of a "Big Bang". If a particular scientist has some religious interest, for example, which leads him to make additional claims for which there is no proof and which is not part of the scientific theory, that's his problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually both things you pointed out as flaws in his knowledge are correct. In order to have a universe that started at one point, you must conclude that the universe is finite in extent. However, the universe, by definition, can have no bounds. This means that if you go forward, you must inevitably return to your beginning point eventually, because the universe is finitely infinite. This results in a curved space philosophy that suggests that space is curved in all directions, and that there is no way to avoid this phenomenon through a change in direction or orientation. This is very possibly an incorrect viewpoint, as it's not actually based on anything but logic which rises up from very questionable postulates (most noteably that space did not exist without the observable universe).

This theory is, however, a direct departure from the Theory of Relativity, which states that there are no absolutes except for the speed of light and that physical laws are the same for everyone. If you actually read the Theory of Relativity, you'll be mortified that science accepts it as true, but unfortunately it makes some predictions that we can't explain yet, and because the ideas behind it may not work, but the implications do, no one really cares.

Objectivism can not, by its own tenets, accept that the Theory of Relativity is a valid theory, and I personally am working my hardest to come up with an alternative. I'm not a physics student, however, so this is pretty hard. You all seem like smart people, so any help with this would be appreciated.

The part about an act of creation is the application of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things move towards chaotic equilibrium. In other words, if the universe were eternal, there would exist uniform temperature and distribution of energy. This is because high energy objects must lose energy to low energy objects over an eternity. Thus it is concluded, quite possibly falsely, that the universe must have begun.

Now, a more logical view of the universe would hold that it originated in a vast space, starting as a quantity of matter and bursting into what we see now, which would explain the divergence of matter within it. This still begs the question, "Where did it come from and how/why?" but that's not something that we currently have the resources to understand.

Alternative views of the universe that make some sense more disconcerting. One is that we are the three dimensional projection of a universe existing in more dimensions. To understand this:

A sphere moving through a two dimensional universe would appear as a circle growing and shrinking. Think of a ball moving through a plane. A circle moving through a one dimensional universe would appear as two points diverging and converging. Now, how would a four dimensional circular entity move through a three dimensional universe? It would appear as a sphere expanding and contracting. Could the universe simply be a three dimensional projection of a phenonenon occuring in dimensions that we don't have the faculty to understand? It certainly makes logical sense, but it's pretty troubling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]This theory is, however, a direct departure from the Theory of Relativity, which states that there are no absolutes except for the speed of light and that physical laws are the same for everyone. If you actually read the Theory of Relativity, you'll be mortified that science accepts it as true, but unfortunately it makes some predictions that we can't explain yet, and because the ideas behind it may not work, but the implications do, no one really cares.

Objectivism can not, by its own tenets, accept that the Theory of Relativity is a valid theory, and I personally am working my hardest to come up with an alternative. I'm not a physics student, however, so this is pretty hard. You all seem like smart people, so any help with this would be appreciated.

This bugs me a bit. I am curious as to why you are so at odds with the Theory of Relativity. Certain aspects of the theory such as time dilation have been directly observed. LINK

When you say ToR holds the speed of light as the only absolute, you are skewing the statement. It's better said that the speed of light is 'the same for any observer in any situation.'

From your comments it seems you think that the ToR speaks to the absolutism of reality by placing the speed of light as "the only absolute." That, like any statement must be taken in context. "...the only absolute, for every observer in specific situations, particularly those involving velocities close to that of light" ToR simply tries to more clearly explain the more exotic aspects of our physical reality which is absolute even under the ToR.

If you really think that an Objectivist would be at odds with an aspect ToR please explain. I hope this is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the observed consequences of the theory, that's what I meant when I said "but unfortunately it makes some predictions that we can't explain yet." What causes my objection is this: If Jonny Rocket is moving quickly through space in his star scooter, his time slows down in relation to us. However, because there is no absolute reference point, from Jonny's perspective, it would be us who were the ones moving about, and not him. Therefore, why is it that our time would not be dilating?

Another consequence of the "no absolute reference point" postulate is that it implies that the universe did not orginate at "a point in space," but instead originated "everywhere." This is because if the universe were finite in dimension, and all space originated at the Big Bang, and proceeded to expand outward, then all space at the time would have been filled by the Big Bang "package." This has a disturbing consequence. It would mean that if you were sitting in the area occupied by the Big Bang "stuff," then if you were to travel away from your current point, you still could not leave the area in which this "package" was located, because the package would encompass all existence. Thus, you could travel on and on, but never be able to get outside the Big Bang, which would mean that, in fact, the Big Bang happened "everywhere."

The true nature of the "curved space" postulate this leads to can not be properly conceived of by a human brain, because human brains operate in three dimensions, or four if you include time. The dimension that would have to exist to substantiate this hypothesis would have to exist outside of "reality" as we perceive it. I'm not saying that this means it's necessarily false, I'm just hoping that there's another way to explain it.

One way that I was grappling with would be the pervasion of some sort of "ether," an idea which has been discredited somewhat due to no one bothering to actually define what it was. I was thinking, however, that a property of ether would be some level of viscosity. I don't exactly know precisely how this would work, but here are some implications:

As something traveled more quickly through ether, the process of atomic "aging" would be slowed, as the atom would have to expend some sort of energy on displacing this ether, and thereby slowing the rest of its functioning. This would lead to the slowing of clocks that has been seen in high speed objects, as one could conclude that the atoms composing these objects would have to pay some sort of energetic "tax" to travel through the ether.

This would also help explain why as something approaches higher speeds, it requires a higher marginal energy to incite it to move faster. As something travels faster, it would have to displace more ether, and therefore it would have to have more energy to do it with.

There are problems with my idea, however. Light, for example, does not slow down as it travels, so the viscosity of ether could not involve friction. My understanding of how "fields" work is very fragmentary, but if ether did not have mass, but was simply a property of "empty space," then it would not necessarily exert a force on an object with an "ether displacing field" around it. This field could be equated to a proportional property of energy, and therefore in order to move through ether an object could either draw energy from other processes within it to create this field (slowing down aging, decreasing kinetic energy), or would simply have to be given more energy from something else (an accelerating agent).

Hope that wasn't a lot more than you were looking for, but I think it makes a lot more sense than the Theory of Relativity. Even if it's more complicated, it would certainly help solve a lot of the theory's more paradoxical issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the observed consequences of the theory, that's what I meant when I said "but unfortunately it makes some predictions that we can't explain yet." What causes my objection is this: If Jonny Rocket is moving quickly through space in his star scooter, his time slows down in relation to us. However, because there is no absolute reference point, from Jonny's perspective, it would be us who were the ones moving about, and not him. Therefore, why is it that our time would not be dilating?

No, that's a misstatement. Our measurement of the rate of a clock traveling with him would be slower than his measurement. Similarly, his measurement of the rate of a clock travelling with us (a different clock, note) would be slower than our measurement. That is, as measured in his frame of reference, our time would dilate. The cases are exactly parallel.

The true nature of the "curved space" postulate this leads to can not be properly conceived of by a human brain, because human brains operate in three dimensions, or four if you include time. The dimension that would have to exist to substantiate this hypothesis would have to exist outside of "reality" as we perceive it. I'm not saying that this means it's necessarily false, I'm just hoping that there's another way to explain it.

The curvature of space can be determined within that space (in principle) by measuring the divergence of two locally parallel beams of light over large distances. This is something general relativity predicts; so far it's passed the tests quite well.

One way that I was grappling with would be the pervasion of some sort of "ether," an idea which has been discredited somewhat due to no one bothering to actually define what it was.

The ether as conceived of in the 19th century in order to explain the observed properties of light was pretty much nonsensical and internally contradictory. Light is polarized, so the ether had to support transverse vibrations (vibrations normal to the path of the light, not back and forth in the direction of the light, or longitudinal, as in sound in fluids), which meant that the ether had to be extremely rigid--much more rigid than any metal to allow light to travel as fast as it does. On the other hand, it had to be exceedingly rarified in order not to cause observable drag of material objects. The only call for pursuing the idea of the ether was to make sense of electromagnetic phenomena, which allowed it to be testable. With the Michaelson-Morley experiment, one model of the ether was eliminated; later experiments ruled out others. Your maunderings on the ether are much less sophisticated than any of those theories.

I was thinking, however, that a property of ether would be some level of viscosity.

Then presumably light would lose energy over large distances. Presumably then you'd argue that that's the cause of the red shift of very distant celestial objects. How would this lost energy manifest itself? By conservation of energy it would have to show up somewhere.

As something traveled more quickly through ether, the process of atomic "aging" would be slowed, as the atom would have to expend some sort of energy on displacing this ether, and thereby slowing the rest of its functioning. This would lead to the slowing of clocks that has been seen in high speed objects, as one could conclude that the atoms composing these objects would have to pay some sort of energetic "tax" to travel through the ether.

This would also help explain why as something approaches higher speeds, it requires a higher marginal energy to incite it to move faster. As something travels faster, it would have to displace more ether, and therefore it would have to have more energy to do it with.

The problem is it wouldn't pay this "tax" all at once. As an object moves relative to the ether, it would have to continue pushing the ether aside. Thus, to continue moving at constant velocity with respect to the ether, it would have to continue paying out energy the whole time. Either the object would cool down (causing any number of thermodynamic effects that are not observed), so that eventually any moving object would come to rest with a much lower temperature; or else an object would not continue paying out the energy at a constant rate, thus slowing down in the absence of friction from material objects (which is not actually observed); or else you have to throw out the law of conservation of energy: You have energy coming in from no one knows where to overcome an unobservable drag, and then what? Does it manifest itself after being absorbed by the ether as some sort of heat or other form of energy we're familiar with, or does it just disappear again into no one knows where?

There are problems with my idea, however.

Damn straight there are.

Light, for example, does not slow down as it travels, so the viscosity of ether could not involve friction.

Non sequitur. It could lose energy by dimming more quickly than the inverse square law would predict. However, the inverse square law can be checked with extreme precision, on the order of one part in a hundred billion, if memory serves. (That is, the exponent is -2 to that degree of precision. However, this might be the precision in the inverse square law for the force between electric charges; but the inverse square law for radiation is of a similarly high degree of precision.)

My understanding of how "fields" work is very fragmentary, but if ether did not have mass, but was simply a property of "empty space," then it would not necessarily exert a force on an object with an "ether displacing field" around it.

You're contradicting yourself. If the ether did not exert a force on an object moving with respect to it, then the object would not have to displace it. If the object has to displace the ether, then the ether exerts a force on the object. You can't have it both ways. To get around that, you introduce an "ether displacing field." Why? It doesn't help you accomplish anything--you'd still have to push the ether aside, and to do that you'd have to supply energy to it, which means an object would have to lose energy as it moved through the ether, or else you'd have to have a magical supply of power to any and all objects moving through the ether, a power supply that would, paradoxically, show up as an absence of energy loss in moving objects under all circumstances. In other words, to have your theory explain the observed facts, you have to introduce something that is unmeasurable, unjustified, and vaccuous.

This field could be equated to a proportional property of energy, and therefore in order to move through ether an object could either draw energy from other processes within it to create this field (slowing down aging, decreasing kinetic energy), or would simply have to be given more energy from something else (an accelerating agent).

"Proportional property of energy" is meaningless. You seem to mean (though it's hard to tell from such a vague statement) a property of some sort proportional to the energy (kinetic? total?) of the object. But with the ongoing loss of energy, the energy of the object would decrease; you'd have deceleration due to ether drag. This is not observed. And this loss of energy, I might add, would hold for any motion relative to the ether, which means that at best you'd find the energy of any object on Earth increasing and decreasing on a 24-hour cycle with a smaller 365.24-day cycle superimposed on it as the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun; otherwise you'd have a decrease in energy at a rate varying over a 24-hour period, etc. This also is not observed.

Hope that wasn't a lot more than you were looking for, but I think it makes a lot more sense than the Theory of Relativity. Even if it's more complicated, it would certainly help solve a lot of the theory's more paradoxical issues.

I don't think so. First, it's a bunch of ad hoc armchair philosophizing that doesn't display any understanding of relativity. Second, I don't see where you've idenitified any genuine paradoxes in relativity. The only thing that even seems paradoxical is your ridiculous misunderstanding of time dilatation. Try to find a copy of Milton Rothman's Discovering the Natural Laws: The Experimental Basis of Physics. It goes into the experimental tests of the conservation of energy, the inverse square law for radiation, and relativity in great detail.

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well I'll admit that you very clearly understand this subject a lot better than I do (your knowledge of the subject clearly exceeds that of my astronomy TA), so let me explain where I get confused. Relative time is something of an abstract concept, that might be looked at as the rate of aging of certain atoms in relation to others. If that definition doesn't serve, then I'd appreciate an alternative.

Let's say we're both at point A. I travel with vigor away from point A, and you remain there. Because of my speed, you are able to observe my atomic makeup age more slowly than yours. However, from my reference point, I can clearly see your atomic makeup aging more slowly than mine. Now, is this due to a sort of redshift in the transmission of light that would mean that light reflecting off of you would have to travel progressively farther to reach me, and vice versa? If so, then were I to turn back and come at you at the same speed, would I see your time going faster, and vice versa, because it was light would have to travel progressively less distance to reach me, and therefore I could in essence make up the difference? I gather that this isn't the case, because then time would not in fact "dilate" (or as I prefer to look at it, the aging of atoms would not be slowed). If atomic lives are being slowed down, what's doing it? I'm not asking rhetorically, I don't know and haven't been able to find a quick answer (I'd love to sit down and read the necessary books, but I'm putting off studying as it is right now).

I guess the question I'm trying to ask is what is slowing these atoms' lives down? I've heard of the idea that we can move through either time or space to a finite extent, and if we move through space faster, we move through time slower, but that implies some absolute reference point as well.

And as for the speed of light being constant: if I'm traveling away from a light source faster than you, and a photon of light as shot from the light source as I pass you, shouldn't it reach both of us, from our separate reference points, at the same time? If so, then wouldn't the photon have to be in two different places at once? How is this possible?

Edited by donnywithana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say we're both at point A. I travel with vigor away from point A, and you remain there.

Just to be persnickety, this is not the same case as you being in an inertial reference frame moving relative to me since there's a period of acceleration when you first move away from me. It's not crucial, however, because you can imagine instead starting out a distance away from me and accelerating in my direction, then each of us measuring the tick rates of our two clocks as you pass me at constant velocity after you've ended accelerating.

Because of my speed, you are able to observe my atomic makeup age more slowly than yours. However, from my reference point, I can clearly see your atomic makeup aging more slowly than mine. Now, is this due to a sort of redshift in the transmission of light that would mean that light reflecting off of you would have to travel progressively farther to reach me, and vice versa?

In fact that's a separate effect. (It was assumed early on that if you actually saw a stick moving at a high speed, it would appear shortened in the direction of motion. However, it was pointed out in the 1950s, I think it was, that if you take into account the differences in the paths of light from the two ends of the stick, then at large distances from you the stick will appear rotated.)

If so, then were I to turn back and come at you at the same speed, would I see your time going faster, and vice versa, because it was light would have to travel progressively less distance to reach me, and therefore I could in essence make up the difference? I gather that this isn't the case, because then time would not in fact "dilate" (or as I prefer to look at it, the aging of atoms would not be slowed). If atomic lives are being slowed down, what's doing it? I'm not asking rhetorically, I don't know and haven't been able to find a quick answer (I'd love to sit down and read the necessary books, but I'm putting off studying as it is right now).

I guess the question I'm trying to ask is what is slowing these atoms' lives down?

You mean, what is causing you to measure them as essentially moving more slowly than someone at rest with them would? Time dilatation depends only on the relative speed, whether toward me or away from me. As for "what's doing it?," well, that's just the way it is. (Notice that in the situation you've described, the fact that you've accelerated so as to change your direction now can't be ignored. This means that for the time of your acceleration you're not in an inertial reference frame; this introduces an asymmetry between you and me that results in another old chestnut of a paradox, the Twin Paradox, whose solution is often given as a homework assignment in relativity courses. However, if you're simply asking instead what I would observe if you were moving at constant velocity towards me, it's the same time dilatation as if you're moving at the same constant speed away from me.)

I've heard of the idea that we can move through either time or space to a finite extent, and if we move through space faster, we move through time slower, but that implies some absolute reference point as well.

Not quite. The space-time interval (urgh, I won't try typing the equation in; look it up) between two events is an invariant (it will be the same for all observers). Invariants are what take the place, if you will, of an absolute reference point.

And as for the speed of light being constant: if I'm traveling away from a light source faster than you, and a photon of light as shot from the light source as I pass you, shouldn't it reach both of us, from our separate reference points, at the same time? If so, then wouldn't the photon have to be in two different places at once? How is this possible?

First off, if it's just one photon, it will be absorbed (and observed) by only one of us. You have to consider a beam of light; that means you and I are observing different photons, which means that you observing the flash of light is a distinct event from me observing it. There's a third event, when the light source emitted the flash of light. These events have to happen in all reference frames, of course; they're definite physical events. The relations between them are not the same when measured by you or by me, however. (In particular, if we're moving relative to each other, I will not see as simultaneous events that you will observe as simultaneous, and vice versa. Their time-space intervals will be the same, however.) More to the point, we're not even measuring the time interval differently between the same two events. To get the point of the constancy of the speed of light, better would be for you and me to arrange things so that when you pass me at a constant velocity, we both emit a flash of light in the same direction (directly opposite or directly along the direction you're moving). These flashes will arrive at a given point at the same time regardless of how fast you're traveling. It's the relation between that event and the observation of later flashes of light that can be tricky and counter-intuitive (in a different way than the constancy of the speed of light). The best thing to do if you're really interested in this would be to learn how to handle simple space-time diagrams. Once you get the hang of them they're quite handy and you don't have to start out with the equations for the Lorentz transformation. One good introduction is here; it's detailed and takes its time about things:

http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part1.html

You should also look through some of the old discussions on this forum about relativity with Stephen Speicher; he's far more up on it than I am and I wouldn't want to try to duplicate what he's already done better than I ever could. But the basic point is that special relativity takes great care in analyzing what is meant by observation, measurement, and events; this is what makes it abstruse and counter-intuitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the question I'm trying to ask is what is slowing these atoms' lives down?

Suppose I have a rod. When I hold it straight up and measure its height, I get say one meter. If I turn it 60 degrees from the vertical and measure its height, I get one half meter. What is making the rod shorter? This is essentially the same question.

The length of the rod remains one meter. But its height changes because the relationship between the rod and the vertical direction (in which direction I measure height) changes.

Similarly, the space-time interval between two events in the life of an object does not depend on its speed. But the relationship between that interval and my time coordinate changes with its speed, so I see its time as dilated.

... if I'm traveling away from a light source faster than you, and a photon of light is shot from the light source as I pass you, shouldn't it reach both of us, from our separate reference points, at the same time?

What do you mean by "a photon of light is shot from the light source as I pass you"? Since these two observers are moving away from the source at different speeds, they will regard different events at the source as simultaneous with their passing each other.

You also seem to be assuming that the distance from the source to us when we pass is the same for both of us. This is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is no such current scientific dogma. The idea of creating something from nothing is not part of the scientific theory of a "Big Bang". If a particular scientist has some religious interest, for example, which leads him to make additional claims for which there is no proof and which is not part of the scientific theory, that's his problem.

Dave:

In my "Curved space is invoked" I did not mean that Objectivism was the source of the statement. Binswanger, in an interview, made the statement that "There is no beyond beyond." in respect to our current Universe. Others assert that if one takes off in one direction and travels long enough he/she will will arrive back home from the other direction. Still others claim "curved space" to be the mechanism at work, which is pure nonsense, of course.

In re "Creation" and the "Big Bang", most Cosmologist believe in an Expanding Universe caused by a Big Bang. Most also, if privately, resign themselves to an act of creation, having no viable alternative. The same scientists are basically atheistic, and although some may toy with the mystical that doesn't enter into this.

By accepting the present idea of a Universe, as currently defined by Cosmologists, some Objectivists are, implicitly, accepting the Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang and, neccessarily, an act of Creation. Ayn Rand, in answer to a question, states that Existence is an existent. However, I intend to prove that Existence is much more than our obervable universe, or an existent, but is instead an infinite and eternal State of Being, within which existents exist. In no way does this refute Miss Rand's axiom "Existence Exists.", but it does describe a far more respectable Existence.

And please, Dave, put your arrogance on the back burner.

Jim Wright

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my "Curved space is invoked" I did not mean that Objectivism was the source of the statement.
Then perhaps you would like to rewrite your post to make clear what point you want to make. Try restating your claim or question with reference to actual claims made by either Objectivists or cosmologists. The latter would be particularly difficult, since you need to distinguish between casual statements issued by someone who might happen to be a professor of cosmetology, and an actual principle of a theory of the universe. Provide quotes and give page numbers; take your claim seriously, and provide the evidence that is needed to prove whatever it is you claim that is claimed by The Standard Model of Existence (if there is such a thing). I know it's a lot of work, but perhaps if you can't provide the necessary evidence, you shouldn't make sweeping claims. Now of course, I'm only speaking about your claims about what "science says" or your claim that some Objectivists believe in an Act of Creation (it is possible that this is a belief of the Sciabarra-Kelley theory sometimes called objectivism or in that cult Neo-Tech, I really don't know). I have little to say about your implication that you can prove the existence of undetectables. That is prima facie nonsense, but if you can actually show me that such things exist, I will believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Wright wrote:

"Our Objectivist philosopher's, [sic] in answer to the question "What lies beyond the Observable Universe?" quote the non-answer "There is no 'beyond" beyond."

Jim Wright, could you point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher "quoting" this "non"-answer? Thanks.

Also, and this may just be my imagination, but I get a little cult-vibe from the phrase "our Objectivist philosopher". "Our"? Huh?

JW continues:

"...Curved Space... [sic] is invoked."

Jim Wright, could you point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher "invoking" "curved space"? Thanks.

"...All seem content with the notion of an Expanding Universe [sic]..."

Jim Wright, could you point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher "seeming content with" -- i.e., agreeing with -- the "notion of an expanding universe"? Further, could you explain in what capacity a philosopher, qua philosopher, should have a position on this scientific topic?

"...but none are willing to go back to the Big Bang era when, if we accept the current scientific dogma, an act of creation occurred.

Objective Reality precludes creation of something from nothing, of course, and even precludes the notion of no "beyond" beyond the edge of the Observable Universe. To so claim is to envision galaxies galore and suddenly, after a bit of travel, reaching a place of "Nothingness", i.e., a place where Something is juxtaposed to Nothing. The axiomatic concept of "Esistence" does not allow for non-existence, a state of nothingness. There can only be Existence. "Non-existence" and "Nothing" are meaningless anti-concepts."

Jim Wright, can you explain the principle you employ to decide when to capitalize a word?

"...But we find our Objectivist leaders blithely accepting the mysticism..."

Jim Wright, could you elaborate on who are "your Objectivist leaders"?

In another post, JW wrote:

"...In my "Curved [sic] space is invoked" I did not mean that Objectivism was the source of the statement. Binswanger, in an interview, made the statement that "There is no beyond beyond." in respect to our current Universe. [sic]"

What does if mean for Objectivism to be the source of a statement? Is your real meaning here that Binswanger is not an Objectivist, and that he is onconsistent with Objectivism on this point?

In which interview did Binswnager say "there is no beyond beyond"?

What is "our current universe"? How is it differentiated from another, say, "non-current" universe?

"... Others assert that if one takes off in one direction and travels long enough he/she will will arrive back home from the other direction. Still others claim "curved space" to be the mechanism at work, which is pure nonsense, of course."

"Of course"? Does it not seem a bit odd to you to tuck the crux of your point into a throw-away, foregone conclusion?

"By accepting the present idea of a Universe [sic], as currently defined by Cosmologists [sic], some Objectivists are, implicitly, accepting the Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang [sic] and, neccessarily, an act of Creation [sic].

Again, I would need for you to point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher accepting this idea. Further, You would need to explain to me why the implicit idea of an "unbounded" universe ("there is no 'beyond' beyond) necessarily implies agreement with a big bang/expanding universe model.

"...I intend to prove that Existence [sic] is much more than our obervable universe, or an existent, but is instead an infinite and eternal State of Being [sic], within which existents exist. In no way does this refute Miss Rand's axiom "Existence Exists." [sic], but it does describe a far more respectable [?] Existence [sic].

Like the previous poster, I look forward to your "proof" of infinity, eternity, and a respectable existence. Among the highlights I anticipate, is an elaboration on this novel new use of the concept "proof".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then perhaps you would like to rewrite your post to make clear what point you want to make.

Dave: I have re-written it somewhat, but don't know how to replace the existing Post.

But, to continue my adventure (and please deal with my ideas, not my lack of professionalism):

THE COLLISION OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY. Part 2. Oct. 13, 2005

Before moving on into this infinite and eternal state of existence, it is useful to discuss the Cosmological Redshift. In the 1930’s, shortly after Edwin Hubble discovered that the nebulae observed among the stars were actually full-fledged galaxies in their own right, he discovered that the light from these distant galaxies was shifted downward in frequency, i.e., was red-shifted., and shortly after that he discovered that the amount of redshift was a function of the distance to the galaxy.

The first reaction to this redshift was that it was a Doppler Effect caused by the galaxies moving away from us at a speed that was a function of distance, but as this led to problems other ideas were advanced, including “Tired Light”, a mechanism which if it could be explained would best fit the observations, but finally the physicists came up with the idea of the expansion of space itself [a vacuum of nothingness?] and appended to this mathematical patches which kept the rate of expansion below the speed of light at the most distant reaches, and via an Inflationary Period, allowed this formulation to blend smoothly into the Big Bang effects.

It is apparent that if a plausible mechanism could be found that would act on the traveling electro-magnetic wave at some constant rate throughout space, the Big Bang-Expanding Universe, and all of it’s problems would vanish, to the relief of a great many. Such a mechanism will be described later.

An obvious problem having to do with an eternity of existence is posed by the fact that all the stars of the Observable Universe are busy spewing mass into space (material mass via the stellar winds, and energy mass via the conversion of mass into energy), i.e., they are dying. Obviously, if they had been doing this for an eternity all galaxies would have been burned up an eternity ago. The fact that they haven’t mandates a source of new galaxies, one that precisely offsets the number of galaxies being burned up each billion years, or each year.

Consider: The Sun is considered to be an average star of the 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way is considered to be an average galaxy of the 200 billion galaxies in the Observable universe. Therefore, the Sun’s numbers may be multiplied to find how much mass is being spewed into space each year by the observable universe, etc., etc. From the literature the Sun’s characteristics are:

Solar mass = 2.2 x 10^27 tons.

Solar Wind mass = 4.6 x 10^6 tons/sec.

Solar Energy mass = 100 x 10^6 tons/sec.

Total Solar mass loss/sec = 1.046 x 10^8 tons/sec.

Galactic mass = 2.2 x 10^27 x 100 x 10^9 (Stars)

= 2.2 x 10^38 tons.

Universe mass loss/sec. = 1. 046 x 10^8 x 1 x 10^11 x 2 x 10^11

= 2. 092 x 10^30 ton’s/sec. x seconds in a year

= 2.092 x 10^30 x 3.16 x 10^7

= 6.611 x 10^37 tons per year.

Equivalent galactic

mass loss/yr. = 6.611 x 10^37/ (2.2 x 10^38)

= 0.3 galaxy equivalents consumed each year.

And, from a unique source, Halton Arp’s 40 years of research on the massive Seyfert galaxies and their activity of ejecting quasar pairs every ten billion years (See “Seeing Red“):

No. of Seyfert galaxies in

the Ob. Universe = 2 x 10^9.

Quasar’s ejected/Yr. = 2/Seyfert x No. of Seyfert’s /10 billion years

= 2 x 2 x 10^9 / (1 x 10^10)

= 0.4 proto-galaxies formed each year.

The equivalence of these two numbers, 0.3 and 0.4, despite the roughness and diversity of the sources of the numbers used, is compelling. What is being said is that:

“Within the Observable Universe there are as many galaxies being formed each year as there are galaxies being burned up each year, and that therefore this Universe will perpetuate itself throughout Eternity.”

Note specifically that all mass consumed is, and must be, recycled, including energy! Otherwise we’d have an inequality of masses.

And if this is so for the Observable Universe there is no reason to suppose that it is not true for the infinity of Existence. The simple fact of Existence is itself proof not only of Eternity but demonstrates the need for such a Cosmic Cycle.

Jim Wright S Objectivist Forum 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have re-written it somewhat, but don't know how to replace the existing Post.
You can't, but you also don't need to. You could simply re-post the revised comment and say that you've reconsidered your statements in some way and here is the current version. Let's see if I can get through part 2 this weekend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Others assert that if one takes off in one direction and travels long enough he/she will will arrive back home from the other direction. Still others claim "curved space" to be the mechanism at work, which is pure nonsense, of course.

Reminds me of an old friend of mine, an Objectivist physicist, who asked once, "What in the world is wrong with curved space-time?" Indeed. It's not pure nonsense, and certainly not as a matter of course.

By accepting the present idea of a Universe, as currently defined by Cosmologists, some Objectivists are, implicitly, accepting the Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang and, neccessarily, an act of Creation.

No, not necessarily. The expansion of the universe implies that at a certain time around 15 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated in a very small space; this might have occurred from a previous collapse. That we can't know anything at present about what the universe was like before a certain time (the time at which the density was greater than our current knowledge of physics can confidently handle) is uncontrovertible; however, that's not the same as saying it was necessarily a moment of creation.

However, I intend to prove that Existence is much more than our obervable universe, or an existent, but is instead an infinite and eternal State of Being, within which existents exist.

I looked at your proposal and off the bat already see a number of problems with it.

An obvious problem having to do with an eternity of existence is posed by the fact that all the stars of the Observable Universe are busy spewing mass into space (material mass via the stellar winds, and energy mass via the conversion of mass into energy), i.e., they are dying. Obviously, if they had been doing this for an eternity all galaxies would have been burned up an eternity ago. The fact that they haven’t mandates a source of new galaxies, one that precisely offsets the number of galaxies being burned up each billion years, or each year.

One problem is that the stars produce energy by fusing lighter elements into heavier elements, but that process can't go on indefinitely. Once you start producing iron-56, you've reached the end of the road; any further fusion would require an input of energy. (Which is what happens during supernovae; some of the enormous energy production is expended in fusing the heavier isotopes. Indeed, it's thought to be what causes supernovae--once the star starts fusing lighter elements into iron-56, the production of energy in the core ceases, causing a collapse in the radiation pressure holding the higher layers of the star up against gravity; this collapse in turn causes a shock wave outward that blows the topmost layers of the star off into space.) The proportion of matter in the universe in the form of iron-56 would inescapably increase over time given what we know of nuclear physics; in an eternal nonexpanding universe, you'd end up with an eternal Iron Age after umpteen billion years, if you will. Not that all the matter will be iron-56--there will be lots and lots of matter in neutron stars, burned-out white dwarfs, and so on. But note that as time passes, more and more matter gets locked up in the burned-out remnants of stars--burned-out because they don't have sufficient mass to fuse them into heavier elements. That's the end of the bright shining stars. Yes, it would be billions and billions and billions of years in the future, but if it's an eternal universe those umpteenillions of years would be nothing compared to the dark eternity to follow.

What I take to be your proposed mechanism doesn't get around this. Yes, you have a continual outflow of mass from the stars. The stellar wind would provide matter (mostly hydrogen and helium) that would eventually condense into new stars, as do novae and supernovae; that's standard astrophysics. (Note that it doesn't result in new galaxies, however; the matter for the most part remains in interstellar space within the galaxy. But you're doing a mass balance, so that's okay.) It's the radiation from the stars that's the problem (and as your figures show, it's 95% or so of the mass loss). What you seem to be aiming for is to set up a mechanism whereby radiation loses energy as it travels very large distances; since this energy has to go somewhere, presumably the energy lost from radiation is converted into matter. There are a number of very serious and fairly obvious problems with this. Now, to have a universe which would be eternal and roughly unchanging over that time (so that you don't end up with everything in burned-out stars), most of this energy would have to be turned into hydrogen.

First, this would require some sort of pair production (an electron and a positron or a proton and an antiproton, for example; you could have other types of pair production, of course, but most of the particles would decay into electrons, protons, neutrinos, etc., quite quickly) since there's charge and momentum conservation, not to mention the other conservation laws of contemporary particle physics--which means there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter produced uniformly throughout the universe, including in our own galaxy. Yet there is no indication that there are substantial amounts of antimatter around. Where is it?

Second, you'd have to have a rough balance between the production of protons and electrons, which you wouldn't expect since protons are so much more massive than electrons and thus should be produced at a much lower rate.

Third, the whole idea of radiation gradually losing energy over long distances goes against what we know of quantum mechanics. Pair production would be a discontinuous process; that could happen only when a certain amount of energy had been built up in a given region (and one wonders how large a region would be involved). How would this energy be manifested before the particles are produced? Would its energy levels be continuous or quantized? Presumably continuous, since the energy loss would have to be proportional to the energy of the radiation to preserve the spacing of spectral lines. However, this wouldn't work under quantum mechanics, which requires a minimum quantization of energy. On the other hand, I consider this the least of my objections.

Fourth, this pair production would have to be uniform throughout the universe--it would depend only on the amount of radiation traversing a given region, and in an infinite universe you'd have to have such uniformity because galaxies would have to be fairly uniform. (Otherwise over the umpteenillion years nonuniformities would be removed by gravitational attraction until a fairly uniform state would be reached.) Thus, what you would expect would be a constant "condensation" of radiation as matter throughout the universe, not just around Seyfert galaxies. In other words, even if we follow you in assuming that Arp's work shows there must be constant renewals of radiation as matter throughout the universe, Arp's work doesn't fit your model since your model wouldn't predict this condensation to be localized around existent galaxies.

Fifth and most serious, even assuming you get around all that, it still just wouldn't work. Energy is produced in fusion by converting the mass difference between the reacting nuclei and the reaction product, and this mass difference is only a small percentage of the reacting nuclei. How many reactions would you have to have to produce one hydrogen atom? Since you have an infinite universe, all the energy in all light traveling large distances would eventually be converted back into matter (assuming it's not absorbed by matter, of course--which it wouldn't by definition, but it does bring up the question of how much of a bound we could put on the loss of energy from radiation with the laboratory techniques we have right now). Take the fusion of hydrogen into helium as representative, since it's the source of most of the radiation of most stars. You have the fusion of four protons into a helium-4 nucleus, which has 0.7% less mass than the four protons. So, to produce one hydrogen atom by losing energy from light would require the production by fusion of around 140 helium-4 nuclei, and hence the fusion of around 560 protons. (In fact, in practice it would actually be twice that since you'd have to produce an antiproton as well. However, the ratio would be the same.) The situation's pretty much the same for all the other fusion reactions within the stars. That ratio of 560-to-1 doesn't come anywhere close to offsetting the constant rise in the proportion of heavier isotopes; indeed, it doesn't even allow you to push back the Big Bang very much! In short, even if we accept your use of Arp's figures as indicating mass "creation" or, rather, "condensation" (which is a very big if), your proposal does no better than the standard model in escaping the eventual death of the universe and an eternity of darkness--and this follows directly from conservation of energy.

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the fusion of hydrogen into helium as representative, since it's the source of most of the radiation of most stars. You have the fusion of four protons into a helium-4 nucleus, which has 0.7% less mass than the four protons. So, to produce one hydrogen atom by losing energy from light would require the production by fusion of around 140 helium-4 nuclei, and hence the fusion of around 560 protons.

Oops. Not even thinking there. It would require quite a bit less, actually--the fusion of 70 protons instead of 560. (Each reaction releases 26.7 MeV, which is 2.8% of the mass of a proton, 938 MeV. To release the energy equivalent to the mass of one proton would require 17.5 reactions.) The point I made remains valid, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with the axiom that "Existence Exists.". Astronomers/Cosmologists define existence as the Observable Universe, comprised of some 200 billion galaxies with average sizes similar to the Milky Way, embedded in a space (Universe) that is supposedly expanding, as determined by the red-shift in the light from these galaxies. Extrapolating backward some 15 billion years indicates that all these galaxies would have been in one place about then and that a monstruous explosion (The Big Bang) occurred at that time which sent the primordial mass (The Primordial Egg) on its way to form the galaxies we see today. Scientists rationalize a bit but their fundamental conclusion is that a Creation event occurred at that time, Creation defined as getting something from nothing.

Our Objectivist philosopher's, in answer to the question "What lies beyond the Observable Universe?" quote the non-answer "There is no 'beyond" beyond." Curved Space (?) is invoked. All seem content with the notion of an Expanding Universe but none are willing to go back to the Big Bang era when, if we accept the current scientific dogma, an act of creation occurred.

Objective Reality precludes creation of something from nothing, of course, and even precludes the notion of no "beyond" beyond the edge of the Observable Universe. To so claim is to envision galaxies galore and suddenly, after a bit of travel, reaching a place of "Nothingness", i.e., a place where Something is juxtaposed to Nothing. The axiomatic concept of "Esistence" does not allow for non-existence, a state of nothingness. There can only be Existence. "Non-existence" and "Nothing" are meaningless anti-concepts.

But we find our Objectivist leaders blithely accepting the mysticism of the scientists where, instead, they should be pointing out the contradiction. Obviously, the error must be in the current hypothesis of an expanding universe and big bang, and in the belief that our observable universe has an edge. Non-acceptance of these notions allows us to conclude that the Universe is infinite and has existed for an eternity. The physicists of Cosmology should set about to discover it.

?????

Jim Wright

jbw,

Hello friends,

(FWIS) (From Where I Stand), I can reveal to you only my Direct Perceptions, if I fail to list a quote or credit to another it is because I do not know their works, or names. If my point is unfamiliar to you, it is that I only report the Why of these Origin. (LOL) I have been told that I think I am a "fat headed know it all" I must point out that I only Know Why.

So Let me begin with the Defining Terms, that may aid in your point of reference: -----------------------------------------------------

1: Time : Is the measure of Change of the Density of Substance in the Present Space.

2: Present : is joined to the Substance and it's ability to Change. EXAMPLE: a Diamond may suspend it's ability to Change, for millions of years, Yet at one point it was a plant/coal, and if joined with Magma, fuel in it's return to Energy.

3: Travel: is not a Change of Location, but a Change in Density as the Energy in that location Manifest into Matter. Matter in the "so called previous location" merely returns to Energy. as the manifestion maintains the Present.

I am not saying that the Big Bang did not occur, only that all other occurrences, did as well regardless of the Big Bang's effect on the convergence of Energy to Matter and the potential to Change back to Energy again. An occurrence not accuracies. (WHY)

Edited by WHYMASTER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Within the Observable Universe there are as many galaxies being formed each year as there are galaxies being burned up each year, and that therefore this Universe will perpetuate itself throughout Eternity."
There are a few points that I want to bring up, and very few at that, since Adrian has dealt with the scientific issues nicely. You compare the Observable Universe with the infinity of Existence. I doubt very much that you were speaking of the observable universe, rather you meant the observed universe. It is a mistake to posit a difference between that part of the universe which can be observed, versus some mysterious part beyond the possibility of observation. If it exists, it can be observed (not necessarily directly, but observed nonetheless). Second, it is a mistake to suppose that there is a differrence between the universe and (the totality of) Existence -- that's what the Universe is. To imply that something exists which is "beyond the universe" means that there is something that exists which does not exist (if it existed, it would be subsumed under the concept of "Universe").

The concept of "Eternity" is about time, so now you have to consider, what is time? Does it exist? Is it an independent entity, or is it an attribute of things? Just as, for example, location in conventional x,y,z coordinates is an attribute of a thing, time is a locational attribute. That means that time is entirely dependent on the universe -- if there's no stuff, there is no time.

What "Eternity" must refer to is "all of the time that exists". Again, if there is no "stuff", then there is no time because time is not an independent existence-external :dough: (i.e. I don't know what you'd call it). Some things last less than an eternity -- roses, mountains, and galaxies for example. In fact, only one thing lasts an eternity -- the universe. And nothing lasts longer than an eternity (except red lights when you're in a hurry). So while I agree that the universe exists for an eternity, I'm afraid that I didn't find your physical explanation helpful because the conclusion really emerges from an understanding of time and the universe, and not stellar processes.

I still have no idea what it is that you think proves that there must be a cosmic cycle. I guess I don't even understand what it is. If you mean that maybe the stuff of the universe oscillates in and out and eventually gets smashed down into a tiny really heavy point, I don't have any problem with that; but this tiny point will still exist, it will be the Universe. If by "universe" you mean "the liveable universe", that's a different matter (P.I).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uneducated question:

If spacetime "curves," or alternatively, compresses, as it approaches matter, could it be that spacetime has a uniform amount of "energy" per "volume," and when compressed sufficiently, it can "change phases" and become mass? Is this a misunderstanding of how spacetime works?

The reasoning I used is this. When you convert matter to energy, its "gravitational field" should "loosen," thus "decompressing" spacetime, right?

Ok, so if spacetime were to decompress with the conversion of mass to energy, is it conceivable that this change could happen in a wave? I don't know, so don't yell at me. :lol:

IF any of what I've said so far is true, which probably isn't likely...

Could waves of this sort interfere with each other in certain places and create matter?

'Cause that would be sweet. :dough:

Edited by donnywithana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adrian: You quote your friend with asking "What's wrong with curved space?" My answer is to ask: How can the (alledged) "Nothingness" of space be expected to do anything? It is only when one accepts the idea that we live in a bubble (the Observable Universe) in that Nothingness, in that "beyond" which isn't, that such a problem arises.

For those who may be reading this: There's no "all there is" in an infinity of existence, therefore the term Universe becomes incorrect.

Stay with me.

To continue:

The Collision of Science and Philosophy. Part 3.

Some twenty-five years ago, Vera Rubin conducted a careful study of spiral galaxies and discovered that each was surrounded by an invisible mass which affected its rate of rotation, a mass that was many times larger than that of the visible portion of the galaxy. Because it could not be seen this mass was dubbed the galaxy's Dark Mass. The mass of this invisible atmosphere was calculated to be a function of its radial size such that its density would work out to be a function of 1/R^2. Such a distribution would form a marvelous Luneberg Lens around the galaxy and consequently would be the cause of the observed Galactic Lenses. Of the mass leaving the stars it is speculated that the stellar winds are gravitationally held within and around the galaxy of origin and so would be the source of this Dark Mass.

There is a second mass that is lost by the stars---that involved in its e=mc^2 activity. Physicists have long claimed that this energy is simply radiated away into space as electro-magnetic waves and is forever lost. However, in an infinity of existence harboring an infinite number of galaxies one could speculate that this loss is offset by incoming radiation, so that a balance of sorts is maintained. Does this energy accumulate?

Going back to the Cosmic Cycle we described only one-half of that cycle, that of the new-born proto-galaxies (the quasars) replacing the galaxies lost to the burning of their stars. To complete the cycle the material mass and the energy mass must make their way into the cores of existing Seyfert’s, perhaps by the Seyfert gravitationally capturing the old, or by several old galaxies merging to form new Seyfert’s. It seems that a galaxy becomes “active”, i.e., becomes a Seyfert, only when it has reached a size at which it becomes critical, and the gravitational pressures in its central region becomes sufficient to ignite some sort of nuclear reaction that re-converts energy into mass. The explosion is so powerful that it expels two massive and equal sized Quasars out through its polar regions. About every 7 billion years, or so, the Seyfert accumulates sufficient additional material and energy masses to repeat its performance. (In reviewing Dr Arp’s Email‘s, I see where I used 10 billion in my earlier Post, vs., his the 7 billion he cited. This would impact the 0.4 vs. 0.3, by reading 0.55 vs. 0.3, instead.)

This atomic reaction is hypothesized as a “must be” type of activity in order to support the hypothesized Cosmic Cycle. Atomic physicists who see merit in the ideas being presented are urged to study the possibilities of the Seyfert’s being massive atomic reactor’s Getting the material mass into the Seyfert’s is straight-forward, but dealing with the energy-mass (in whatever form it may have) is a matter that will be developed later, although, for the Cosmic Cycle to be 100 % efficient it is obvious that it must be real and fully involved.

Jim Wright S Objectivist Forum 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adrian: You quote your friend with asking "What's wrong with curved space?" My answer is to ask: How can the (alledged) "Nothingness" of space be expected to do anything?

Because you have to look at how coordinate systems are actually set up in general relativity. Coordinate systems are chosen so that an object moving unimpeded under the influence of a gravitational field can be treated as moving in a locally inertial frame of reference (thus, special relativity holds locally). The path of an object is then a geodesic in the coordinate system defined by this, which allows you to represent the space mathematically as a Riemannian manifold (which is a very general mathematical construct having lots of useful properties). In short, the coordinate system set up to span space so as to preserve special relativity locally follows mathematically from the distribution of matter/energy--it's set up so that space is, in a sense, nothing but the set of relations between physical entities. Curved space-time, then, isn't the mysterious action of a nothingness somehow imposing itself on physical reality; it is rather a concise statement of the actual physical facts, which are that all motions curve under the influence of gravitation. It's not the space itself doing anything; it's the measurement of space being chosen so as to reflect what gravitation causes to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then perhaps you would like to rewrite your post to make clear what point you want to make. Try restating your claim or question with reference to actual claims made by either Objectivists or cosmologists. The latter would be particularly difficult, since you need to distinguish between casual statements issued by someone who might happen to be a professor of cosmetology, and an actual principle of a theory of the universe.

Hmm, one wonders what a professor of cosmetology would have to say about it. "Well, there are three types of coiffures that occur out there. There are round coifs, curly coifs, and pigtails. Probably the different coifs are chosen by different generations, but since we can't chat with them we don't know for sure." Or, "Well, the light gets shifted redder and redder the further you look out because that means you're looking at older and older galaxies, and as they get older they dye their hair more. It's odd that there's no brunette shift as well, but there's no accounting for taste."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the Cosmic Cycle we described only one-half of that cycle, that of the new-born proto-galaxies (the quasars) replacing the galaxies lost to the burning of their stars.

This latest posting is quite vague, but this seems to be one of your problems right here. What do you mean by galaxies being "lost" due to the burning of their stars? The galaxies don't just dry up and evaporate into nothingness as the stars burn. They burn out, which means that after however many billions of years the stars in them stop shining one by one as they use up the lighter isotopes (especially hydrogen) and slowly cool off. Most of the matter in the galaxies will remain there in the form of heavier isotopes; it doesn't "go away." For an upper bound on how much mass would be lost to radiation over the lifetime of a galaxy, assume it starts out as a mass of hydrogen-1 and all of it is fused into iron-56. For each 56 protons fused into one iron-56 nucleus, an amount of energy equivalent to half the mass of a proton is released, or on the order of 1% of the initial mass. So, "losing" a galaxy means that at most 1% of its mass is lost as radiation; the other 99% or more remains there in a dark state after the galaxy burns out.

To complete the cycle the material mass and the energy mass must make their way into the cores of existing Seyfert’s, perhaps by the Seyfert gravitationally capturing the old, or by several old galaxies merging to form new Seyfert’s.

How would "energy mass" be captured gravitationally? It wouldn't be unless it's by a black hole. Only matter can be captured gravitationally otherwise. Galaxies acting as gravitational lenses wouldn't cause the energy to be captured but only redirected as the radiation is focused.

It seems that a galaxy becomes “active”, i.e., becomes a Seyfert, only when it has reached a size at which it becomes critical, and the gravitational pressures in its central region becomes sufficient to ignite some sort of nuclear reaction that re-converts energy into mass.

Huh? At first I assumed that was a typo for "mass into energy," but now I'm not so sure. So what sort of nuclear reaction would convert energy into mass? Well, fusion of nuclides heavier than iron-56 for one thing; fission of lighter nuclides for another. That's theoretically possible, but I don't see how you could make it work. Basically you'd have to have a massive inflow of energy into each nucleus--it would require extremely high-frequency radiation (gamma radiation, in general) of very specific frequencies, since radiation can only be absorbed by the nucleus if its energy is precisely that of one of the excited states or greater than the binding energy of the nucleus. Moreover, unless the radiation is sufficient to fission the nucleus in one step, the excited state would decay very quickly and you'd just have the same radiation re-emitted by the nucleus. But this wouldn't give you an explosion, as you postulate for the Seyfert galaxies, but a deep energy sink--talking of igniting such a nuclear reaction is thoroughly misguided.

Moreover, only a small proportion of the energy emitted by stars is of a high enough frequency to fission these nuclei, so you can't have this done directly by the radiation from far-distant galaxies, which you assume into the bargain is continually losing energy as it travels. Note that such a process wouldn't fit your proposed mechanism for red-shifting light at all: The absorption of a given photon by a nucleus would be all or nothing and would affect only a small set of very high frequencies, which wouldn't give you red shifting at all but rather an unshifted emission spectrum with absorption lines at very high frequencies. In other words, you still have the problem of explaining how your proposed loss of radiative energy throughout every region of space (for which you have not proposed any sort of mechanism at all, I might add) somehow results in the energy getting shunted into the cores of Seyfert galaxies to break up heavier isotopes into hydrogen with the end result of the emission of quasars--a process which by your assumptions of eternity and infinity must require on average the conversion back into matter of pretty much all the energy being emitted as radiation! It's surprising we can see anything at all out there!

The explosion is so powerful that it expels two massive and equal sized Quasars out through its polar regions. About every 7 billion years, or so, the Seyfert accumulates sufficient additional material and energy masses to repeat its performance. (In reviewing Dr Arp’s Email‘s, I see where I used 10 billion in my earlier Post, vs., his the 7 billion he cited. This would impact the 0.4 vs. 0.3, by reading 0.55 vs. 0.3, instead.)

In other words, you're now pointing to the appearance of just about twice as much mass as is lost through radiation. That won't work. See, this is where the standard model knocks your armchair philosophizing into a cocked hat: You just have to assume they sweep up matter in intergalactic space left over from the Big Bang. Intergalactic space gets emptier and emptier of matter as it gathers into galaxies. This process will slow down as time passes, of course, but that's no problem for the standard model, which assumes that there was a beginning to the present state of the universe (not necessarily to the universe as such) and to the processes that led it to develop to the state it is in now. Thus, in the standard model, there's no problem with the rate of creation of new galaxies by that mechanism to be twice as large on a mass basis as the rate of radiative emission from fusion--the two processes are entirely unrelated. The former just involves the aggregation of matter from a dark state into a bright state; the latter converts it back in the long long long run into much denser dark matter and radiation. In the standard model, it's no serious objection that the universe must run down and all the lights go out unless expansion reverses--if that's the way it is, then that's the way it is.

And the standard model has another nice feature that your model doesn't have. If it takes 7 billion years on average for Seyfert galaxies to sweep up enough intergalactic matter to emit quasars, then assuming that the universe was fairly homogeneous when the first galaxies started forming, the emission of quasars by Seyfert galaxies would be correlated throughout the universe--they'd occur at pretty much the same time no matter in which direction you look. (In an eternal and infinite universe there would be no reason for such correlation in time.) And because the further away you look the further back in time you look, you should find quasars to be emitted only in narrow bands or shells of space centered on the Earth (and thus of time before the present) that are roughly periodic (every seven billion light years or so, according to what you now say), and uniform in all directions. And lo and behold! when I search on Arp, Seyfert, and quasars to check pro-Arp sites run by creationists and other windmill-tilters, I find the appearance of precisely this set of facts to be offered as proof of the falsity of the standard model: "The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!" In other words, this creationist is a benighted ignoramus, but then what else is new? (In the standard model every point in the universe would appear to be the center of the universe if the universe is uniform over sufficiently large distances, so the appearance of concentric shells indicates that something happened throughout the universe at the time the light was emitted by the matter in that shell. The full triplet of equivalents is, of course, "redshift equals distance equals time." We know the redshift indicates distance because of the apparent luminosity of Cepheid variable stars, and we know there's a constant speed of light, so it's an uncontrovertible set of equivalences unless you throw out 20th century physics.)

This atomic reaction is hypothesized as a “must be” type of activity in order to support the hypothesized Cosmic Cycle.

What atomic reaction? You haven't specified one. In fact, you say just below that it's "a matter that will be developed later":

Getting the material mass into the Seyfert’s is straight-forward, but dealing with the energy-mass (in whatever form it may have) is a matter that will be developed later, although, for the Cosmic Cycle to be 100 % efficient it is obvious that it must be real and fully involved.

All you've done is erect a house of cards on the basis of armchair philosophizing (a practice rightly despised by physicists) amounting to saying that since you object to the standard model for extra-physical reasons, there must be somewhere some sort of nuclear reaction that somehow converts energy into matter: "it is obvious that it must be real and fully involved." "Obvious"? "Must be"? Your model doesn't stand up to sustained examination. It can't explain a wide variety of observations that the standard model was based on and it runs counter to modern physics and a very wide range of experiments. If anything, it's obvious that you had better learn a lot more about this standard model that you object to!

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem is that the stars produce energy by fusing lighter elements into heavier elements, but that process can't go on indefinitely. Once you start producing iron-56, you've reached the end of the road; any further fusion would require an input of energy.

Another relic of writing too fast late at night: Rather, once you start fusing iron-56 (and other nuclides like cobalt-56 and nickel-56 that have almost the same binding energy as iron-56) with other nuclides. Mind you, the stage where you fuse such elements as silicon and phosphorus into nickel and iron doesn't last very long since you get relatively little energy out of it--on the order of ten days, in fact.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...