 |
| Sky Mirror, Red 2007 by Anish Kapoor |
The Red Shift in a Shell Universe
Earlier, this researcher had considered the possibility of Totally Internal Reflections of propagated electromagnetic energy, occurring at such Edges of a Substrate, and, in consequence, making eminently possible, extended zigzag paths, starting from an initial source, via one or more such reflections, before reaching an observer.
Now, the details of that Theory should be reviewed to investigate the possibilities. But, the most important effect must be that Light from a source will not be lost, effectively to infinity, by continuing beyond such boundaries. On the contrary, that "radiation" would always be reflected back at such a boundary, so that an apparent origin, outside the Universe, would be implied.
And, the Universe would appear bigger than it actually is.
In addition, such reflected paths would involve a much longer propagation pathway, and hence be delivering light from an earlier time of production from the source, yet possibly arriving, at the observer, simultaneously with that from the same source, but by another, alternative route.
Indeed, given the position of a persisting source, and enough time (and, of course, the appropriate position of an observer, light could be multiply reflected before reaching the observer, and hence deliver information a great deal older than could be obtained by direct observation (that is without such reflections).
Clearly, these multiply-reflected propagations, would appear to be both very old and very far away, so they ALONE would contain information from the very earliest times in our Universe.
NOTE: For more details about these ideas see the two Special Issues of SHAPE Journal entitled The Shell Universe.
Now, clearly, with not only an outer boundary of the Universe, but also with an inner boundary (assuming a Big Bang of finite duration), reflections could not only occur at the outer edges, but at the inner edges too.
Now, this paper is not primarily concerned with all the necessary consequences of those features.
It is, first and foremost, about considering the possible variation in the nature of the substrate on or near such boundaries.
For, if densities were different there, we could well get intrinsic Red Shifts, entirely due to light paths having visited such an area, and hence suffering a modification of the frequencies of the carried Light! The recently reported anomalies in Red Shift from “extremely distant sources”, may indeed, reflect that those light streams are NOT direct, but have both been reflected, and indeed, modified by those visited regions.
An Evolving Red Shift?
The basis for the light we receive is generally from multiple atoms, which are exactly as we conceive of them now. The basic form, with a nucleus and orbiting electrons is stable, indeed, stable enough to be exactly the same, universe-wide, or so we assume.
But, I am going to consider that the form, the atom, though in most respects it is indeed reliably the same, could have changed significantly in certain past conditions, situations or times, to have been different enough to give us an alternative cause of Red Shift of the spectral lines shown in propagated spectra.
Both emission and absorption lines in the spectra of light from celestial bodies indicate that atoms (elements) are causing them and hence the composition of the source, or any surrounding clouds of interstellar gases, to produce what we finally see.
The Red Shift, since its discovery, was always conceived of as a Doppler Effect, and its general preponderance was taken as proof that the Universe must be expanding!
But, think about it... Such an idea is based upon both Waves and a Medium, such that if the latter is stretched, or, alternatively, the movement of the source actually deposits a stretch upon a background substrate, or even the movement away of the recipient can also deliver such a stretch. For then, a Red Shift by Doppler means naturally occurs.
But, are our basic assumptions wrong?
They usually, if not always, are - the trajectory of Human Knowledge is no single, continuous staircase, but a halting ascent with some inordinately long impasses, and even many temporary and incorrect detours! Hegel always said that if you encounter a contradiction, it will always be due to your mistaken premises, which are simply NOT true. He deliberately sought out what he termed as Dichotomous Pairs of concepts (like Zeno’s Continuity and Descreteness), as the ONLY guaranteed route to unearthing our often unstated premises, which had led to both arms of that contradiction.
Now, from the above comments on the Red Shift, it is surely clear that we consider atoms as constant both over time and throughout known Space. What might make that incorrect?
Well, current research by this theorist into a Universal Substrate, is posing interesting questions, which might be relevant here. For, the current assumption about this substrate, is that it not only fills the so-called Empty Space, but also its nooks and crannies, indeed, all possible interstices, such as the space inside atoms! Indeed, his emerging theory of quantized electron orbits within the atom depends upon the resonant interactions of orbiting electrons and their caused vortices within a substrate.
NOTE: For a basis for such ideas, see Yves Couder’s famous Walker Experiments, and the quantized orbits he created at the macro level.
They usually, if not always, are - the trajectory of Human Knowledge is no single, continuous staircase, but a halting ascent with some inordinately long impasses, and even many temporary and incorrect detours! Hegel always said that if you encounter a contradiction, it will always be due to your mistaken premises, which are simply NOT true. He deliberately sought out what he termed as Dichotomous Pairs of concepts (like Zeno’s Continuity and Descreteness), as the ONLY guaranteed route to unearthing our often unstated premises, which had led to both arms of that contradiction.
Now, from the above comments on the Red Shift, it is surely clear that we consider atoms as constant both over time and throughout known Space. What might make that incorrect?
Well, current research by this theorist into a Universal Substrate, is posing interesting questions, which might be relevant here. For, the current assumption about this substrate, is that it not only fills the so-called Empty Space, but also its nooks and crannies, indeed, all possible interstices, such as the space inside atoms! Indeed, his emerging theory of quantized electron orbits within the atom depends upon the resonant interactions of orbiting electrons and their caused vortices within a substrate.
NOTE: For a basis for such ideas, see Yves Couder’s famous Walker Experiments, and the quantized orbits he created at the macro level.
But, note the current conception of this substrate is not a classic continuous and elastic medium, which can be set into oscillation, but a substrate of descrete units with their own internal orbits, so that quanta of oscillation energy are passed along, bucket-brigade fashion from unit to unit of that substrate.
No Doppler stretching can possibly occur in such a substrate, either real or apparent, and all transfers are in descrete quanta from the internal orbit in one unit to that in another.
So, now, the seeming universality of the spectral lines seems to indicate that if a substrate were involved, it must be the same everywhere.
But, that doesn’t seem at all reasonable. For, that substrate wasn’t necessarily a constant: it had to arise, as did everything else in the Universe.
The current, seemingly universal, stability is a state that has been established in the past, and now persists! Yet everything just couldn’t arise ready-made as it appears today. It must have evolved into this state, as a consequence of the content involved, and the context in which it existed.
We are therefore driven to theorising speculatively about that actual History, and its significant events, in order to get some sort of idea as to its phases of development. The question comes to mind, “Would this currently conceived of substrate have always been exactly the same, or is it also likely to have evolved to its present state, as part of an overall development?”
Now, this involvement of a supposed, descrete-unit Substrate, with the quantizing of an atom’s orbital electrons, indicates that if this substrate made to be different, then the quantized orbits would also be different, and hence the spectral lines due to certain elements might change.
Also, if the Substrate was changing its composition, then that would do the same thing.
The most general question, if we are to assume a Substrate, has to be, “What changes in the Substrate would pack closer the energy levels of atomic electrons, and what would possibly spread them apart?”
Obviously, if the latter were the case, the transition would be bigger, and the result would be a Blue Shift in any characteristic spectral lines, while if they were closer together, the transitions would be smaller, and any spectral lines would instead suffer a Red Shift.
Now, this way of reasoning is essential, if you are a holist scientist, rather than a pluralist one, because the easy, yet mistaken, simplification and idealisation of the pluralist route are no longer considered to be legitimate in such questions.
Indeed, the premises involved become paramount in transcending any consequent impasses arising from such grounds.
If you, as I did for decades, pluralistically seek forever-constant Natural Laws, then your necessary premises came entirely after the event, and were, in fact, significant efforts to make a whole collection of prior and new findings coherent!
The currently existing tail was made to wag every new dog!
Now, with such an always applied process the new findings were fixed too, flowing from current stabilities. Clearly, if Reality evolved in every area, then such retrospective filtering of the new, was not letting them develop our understanding, but rather fitting them into an already decided framework! Rarely questioned premises were wholly directing our investigations both in our methods and our assumptions.
But, as the History of Human Thinking has shown, NO premises are ever absolutely true!
Any method that attempts to build upon unstated-but-intransigent premises derived from a prior set of ideas about what might have happened, in their evolution, will invariably be distorted by flaws in that assumed ground!
NOTE: Merely by assuming a Universal Substrate in the infamous Double Slit Experiments, this theorist was able to remove every single one of the anomalies, without ever resorting to the Copenhagen stance whatsoever!
Now, these seem reasonable, though, of course, as yet unproved, but, an important aspect, of any new theories, must be how effective they are at explaining difficult phenomena, and most important of all in transcending any impasses that have occurred (see Hegel’s work).
So, it now seems valuable to speculate upon what a differing internal density of the substrate within atoms would do to spectra and why. Perhaps, the last of these must be addressed first!
What evolutionary scenario might explain a changing composition and/or density of a Universal Substrate over time?
To begin, we will make an important supposition – “Without a Substrate NO electromagnetic radiation of any kind could be propagated!”
The alternative idea that it could happen in totally Empty Space is totally insupportable. As Maxwell proved, the nature of all such radiation is complex – with two oscillating components with a sinusoidal character, one electric and the other magnetic, happening at right angles to one another – all occurring, and even propagating in total nothingness?
It is a placeholder rubbish for “we don’t know!”
So, that if this were true, very early on in the development of the Universe, and if there were then NO substrate yet in place, then all interactions and happenings would be exclusively dynamic, and limited locally. For without an active propagating substrate there could only be collisions and trajectories!
A substrate can distribute radiation (including energy) to all parts of its extent, no matter how distant: it must have been vital in the extension and development of the Contents of the Universe.
In a no-substrate origin, a limited, almost random mix world would gradually extend, but merely by translational movements outwards.This means that such an early state would be incredibly dense, but constantly declining as more of the content was moved outwards.
We cannot even assume modern atoms at that stage or even a modern concept of any sort of substrate. We have to assume that solely translational spread allowed new conditions to appear, in which unions of the merest specks of matter might occur, without immediately dissociating again!
The modern concept of a Universal Substrate (at least so far) is that it is composed (at least in part) of very tiny stable particles termed neutritrons – within each of which there is a mutually orbiting pair of one electron and one positron.
Now, whether this really is the unit of a Universal Substrate remains to be conclusively proved, but several strands of pre-existing evidence have suggested that this could well be the case. For, such a joint particle has been observed, but only in high energy situations, where it is completely unstable, and dissociates almost immediately.
[See the positronium discovered in the Tevatron at Fermilab]
So, clearly, such a substrate of those units could only form and become stable Universe-wide, in appropriate conditions – perhaps outside the main concentration of matter and energy – such as in so-called Empty Space!
Now, whether these conditions could emerge without a propagating substrate, is surely the Key question! And, I can see no reason why it should not grow indefinitely in circumstances around the edges of the growing proto-Universe.
But, the formation of a neutritron, which is stable and to then begin the process of constructing a substrate out of them, is gradually being revealed in current researches.
Let us suppose that the early substrate was local and small, and hence fairly dense. As has been proved elsewhere by this theorist, neutritrons packed closely together, have a strong tendency to form a unique linked system, which he has termed a Paving, ultimately building outwards to totally fill Space!
Now, it should be made clear that this theorist is totally aware of the speculative nature of these ideas.
But, in totally rejecting the current consensus in modern Sub Atomic Physics – namely The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, he has no choice but to look elsewhere.
He is also fully aware of his responsibilities to destructively test these ideas, on the one hand, and extending them on the other. And, most of all the re-establishment of a sound philosophical stance and physical explanations for all aspects of Reality.
Part 1
No comments:
Post a Comment