Theory and Cosmology

 

Addressing the impossibility

 

of its Experimental Confirmation

The performance of cosmological theory over millennia has taken an unavoidably distorted trajectory, due entirely to who were involved in both initiating and then developing it. They were, most certainly, NOT in immediate, detailed possession of what they needed, to begin to interpret the Night Sky, which was where they sought answers, to what it displayed, as the context for where-and-how they then were. And, in spite of the clear evidence everywhere else around them of almost constant change, The Heavens above seemed different - while they were seemingly in constant movement regularly across the sky, they were otherwise fixed (or highly predictable) in content, displaying an intricate-but-unchanging order to the Universe!

Surely, the clear unchanging order of The Heavens must also underlie the complexities of things down here on Earth?

So, a general Ordering-Mythology was constructed, in the image of the observers - Mankind - by those who resided up there in the Heavens, and consciously-directed things down here, like pieces within a game! It wasn't very effective in influencing things down here on Earth, but it satisfied the majority - by reflecting those evidently occupying positions of power on Earth - while justifying largely what those Rulers did also.

But, it could not suffice, as clear causes and effects were increasing evident down here on Earth, and certain privileged individuals, with both the time and the resources, began to look for analyses, not only for what happened here, but also for the Nature of The Heavens, as they were increasingly observed in ever greater detail.

And, even more damning, there were increasing numbers of ordinary people, certainly not of the privileged class, who were intervening ever deeper into Nature, down here on Earth, with regularly increasing success, even if it was in the areas that were restricted to the privileged classes, such as those who planted crops, and both tended them, along with their captive food animals, built wheeled carts, and even smelted iron from naturally occurring ores.

The increasing intellectualism of the privileged classes, more and more, had to include these real concrete achievements made by those who had to successfully build things using natural resources, but always somehow-and-necessarily subordinated to the overall Philosophy that justified the current Political Order, down here on Earth!

The discoverers certainly weren't what we would now call scientists, and so their devised incantations were just as important, if not more so, than their sequences of appropriate material processes: for at that stage they only knew How, but never Why, things worked as they did.

Their basic Principle was Pragmatism, and this worked very well for many thousands of years.

And, the early attempts of the philosophic wing of the privileged classes did nothing to throw a revealing light upon these Pragmatic Discoveries. But they did, ultimately, in the Greek Intellectual Revolution of the 5th century BC, impose the general Principle of Plurality.

They imposed Plurality, first legitimately upon the Emerging Discipline of Mathematics, and, thereafter, wholly illegitimately, upon both General Reasoning and all of the emerging Sciences.

But, literally from even before the Bronze Age, Mankind had been observing both the Heavens and the varying times of sunrise and sunset, the Moon's rise and set: and also crude means of measurement of both Heavenly events and their Times, all slowly-but-surely related to measurable things, and these were purely for crucial prediction purposes - such as the planting and gathering of crops. The most advanced of these early cultures were always connected with rivers, due to their flooding, and then with primitive irrigation. But, as to any overall Explanatory Meaning to all these observations: that was only present in the form of being the controlling Decisions of the Gods!

It was only by the time of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, that they arrived at the entirely Pluralist Conceptions of Mathematics, and also linking their measurements to Causes, and these were, always, wholly idealistically, arrived at, with Number itself, being given Causal Weight, when it could, while all the rest still being due to the Will of the Gods.

Indeed, several millennia were dominated by such "explanations", and it was not until the early Middle Ages that Mankind added Investigative Experiments to the crucial means of developing the first real attempts at Causal Explanations, independently of Mathematics, though that continued to be a major means at the Scientists disposal! It was only when supposedly Explanatory Equations were developed, that Plurality was imported along with the increasingly dominant Mathematics, making all of these "Laws" also permanently fixed.

It must be emphasised that literally all Explanations were originally wholly independent of Mathematics, and always involved concrete physical Causes, which NEVER DID gel completely with the Equations formulated by the inclusion of Algebra and its evident Rationality into the System. They were similar, or even close, but as accuracy gradually improved, they increasingly differed ever wider from each other.

So, to cap it all, the technicians and engineers, who established the practical conditions for these Experiments, became supremely adept, by drastically limiting the context and content delivered, so that what went on was artificially converted into a wholly-artificial Pluralist State, in which the Pluralistic Equations DID reflect exactly what happened there! Yet, a further wholly WRONG assumption, underlying this whole process, was that, even in the World of Reality-as-is, the many naturally-simultaneous, individual Laws acting together were definitely NOT exactly-the-same as the artificially Pluralist Equations obtained from such Experiments.

For that was wholly UNTRUE!

And that has major implications for a supposed Generally Applicable Science, developed wholly-mathematically from a collection of uniquely constructed experiments, each strictly pluralised for that situation alone, yet here merged illegitimately into a "generally-applicable set of coherent Laws", achieved wholly by algebraic substitutions between its actually unique, individual, Pluralist Laws.

Now, in spite of these wholly damaging effects theoretically, yet technologically, as a whole sequence of wholly separate processes, they could be successfully marshalled into an overall Successful Production. And what had been the perennial, justifying tenet for many millennia?

"If it works, it is right!"

But Real Laws DO NOT remain exactly the same in all circumstances: they ARE affected by both context and content of their situations! Pluralist Fixed Laws were always a simplification: a "holding still of Reality", in order to tightly restrict its natural relations, and substitute a Single Fixed Law as a step towards understanding a situation.

Sadly, it Absolutely NEVER does that! It is, at best, a crude approximation, that, along with others of the same ilk, takes the overall theory ever further from the Truth, while in experentially demonstrated sequences can still achieve desired objectives. But, it is NOT an adequate means for extending our understanding of Reality-as-is, for it uses only Fixed Laws, which, at best, move in and out of Dominance!

To illustrate just how lame this is, it cannot ever predict-and-explain any Qualitative Changes at all: and the absence of predictions of the Emergence of the Wholly New are because they are always totally impossible, and even when such do happen, they can NEVER be explained!

The whole Dynamical Trajectory of Evolutionary Changes, were-and-are wholly unobtainable, because so-called Science hasn't ever addressed such things!

The most important, and really-existing Natural Laws are all to do with how purely locally-defined-laws can relate to one another: in fixed ways, and even then it isn't simple addition: nor should it be replicated by Overall Randomness, and Probability Theories, especially when Qualitative Changes occur, and remove the situation from its wholly Pluralist conditions... It is then, on the contrary Holistic!

For, in Reality-as-is, absolutely NO law exists or acts either alone, or in such simple relationships as occur in all cases in Plurality. All results involve a number of contributions, that always affect one another: and all the involved qualitative changes, which can only be addressed in some sort of Holistic way.

But, the Laws governing these interactions are largely, wholly unknown, and never sought, because they appear to result in endlessly complicated, and forever varying results! And, though that is almost true, it isn't entirely so - for these seemingly un-analysable complexities DO indeed settle into regularities, but with frequently initially-totally-unpredictable outcomes!

Perhaps, the very best illustration of the difficulties involved in Holist Science, was demonstrated by Stanley Miller's famous Experiment upon the Origin of Life on Earth. He set up a sealed System, containing all the known components of a pre-Life Earth, with the elements of a primitive Atmosphere, Water and the application of Heat, with a condenser to deliver Rain, and electric Sparks as Lightning, and set the System in Motion! Within a week, he opened it up, and analysed the Reddy-brown liquid that had been formed, and discovered that it contained Amino Acids - the Key Building Blocks of All Life, which had been produced. But, he had no idea, and could not discover, just how it had all happened: as well as no idea how, then, to proceed further with his investigations! The Experiment was abandoned as impossible to achieve anything further that would be useful.

But, as this physicist has discovered, developments since Miller's time, along with, instead, a required whole sequence of experiments that would be necessary: each one determined by questions arising within prior-produced versions. And also, the included provision of inert channelling barriers - devised, to allow alternative simultaneous paths of development, along with non-intruding monitors - built into those barriers - gathering a great deal of information that could be gleaned, in detail, about what exactly was going on.

Clearly, such means simply must be a major part of the Holistic Experimental Procedures, for what, generally, needs to be revealed are NOT Single Fixed Pluralist Laws, but whole sets of related circumstances, with their contained, but varying Laws - and, of course, sufficient validations of any extracted theoretical conclusions! And, instesd of merely linear addutive "development, there surely has to be an effective means of recognising the precursors of a Coming Qualitative Change, that will change almost everything involved.

Now, the reader will probably be wondering now exactly when we are going to address Cosmology!

But, clearly, though in the usual Pluralist Approaches to the topic, many obvious criticisms could be validly made - they would, most certainly NEVER lead to new and revealing solutions, because the whole Pluralist Basis is both wrongly and wholly incapable of revealing what is necessary! Clearly, the only possible effective approach has to be Holistic too.

So, the above clarifications had to be essential, to have any hope of making real progress in the area of Cosmology! Just think about the difficulties of effective Confirmation Experiments on Earth.

They would be wholly impossible in Cosmology!

But, the very variety of outcomes with a Holistic Approach, could only match with a profoundly close set of holistic explanations: and further possibilities could be suggested and examples of them sought in The Cosmos! Indeed, the very variabilities become an advantage so mere Observations would be far better confirmations than they could ever be with Fixed Pluralist Laws.

Postscript:

Just imagine Miller's Experiment, re-designed as described earlier, involving long sequences of versions, with separated paths of development, along with others in an investigative-remix! What could be learned there would be the best possible primers for a subsequent set of applications in Cosmology...

What is the Philosophy of Mathematics?

 

Worlds created from abstractions are virtual, not real

What is Mathematics?

And what is its Relationship to Reality?

I have been looking for satisfactory answers to the questions above for sometime - none are forthcoming! Having just watched a couple of lecture videos on Youtube - one by Ray Monk on The Philosophy of Mathematics and another via Google Talks by a Dr. Stephens on Emmie Noether, my question (posed by the title to this paper), that literally demands to be addressed, remains unanswered. It was needed to clear up exactly where Reality-as-is terminates, and the products of Human Thinking, both claim to take over and intervene, by Reversing-the-Process, and beginning instead to contribute to the actual defining of "A Reality" via man-made Purely Formal Relational System!

The Ray Monk video

Indeed, though not admitted as such, that actual change was one of the unavoidably Key Products of the Greek Intellectual Revolution of the 5th century BC, when a successful attempt to do precisely that was actually made possible by their invention-and-use of certain

Simplifying Relational Abstractions

applied to concretely impossible, yet mathematically essential relations, between such things as:

               

- Points with zero parts

- Lines with zero thickness 

- Planes with zero depth

For it was these abstractions, and these alone, that made Mathematics possible, by restricting the whole exercise, with such transforming physical constraints: that they also made all subsequent relations in that discipline to become Forever Fixed in quality! Everything was made, by these changes, to conform to an essential

Principle of Plurality

- but though easy to validly insist upon, within the Realm of Pure Forms alone, it was wholly impossible to apply in Concrete Reality-as-is! So, when usefully applied to "such a Reality", that too, ALSO just had to be majorly-constrained to deliver only such necessarily-Fixed-Relations- achieved by forcibly-limiting the situation involved, into a rigidly-constrained Stability - indeed, into a guaranteed Pluralist Situation, to enable Mathematics to be effectively-used.

Therefore: Reality is NOT revealed by Mathematics!

Reality has to be made to conform to our abstractions.

However, such seemingly-unchanging Stabilities can occur naturally, and often do if only temporarily, AND, in addition, man-made Pluralist Stabilities were often fairly easy to both construct-and-maintain: the consequently extract Pluralist Laws, from both such contexts, were then further-assumed to be the Natural Truth, but usually often hidden under many overlying and masking extras. 

So, this major and false inversion, promoted Pluralist Laws as the "Actual Truths of Reality", and material Reality-as-is was demoted into becoming "a misleading fiction"! And, consequently, all arranged-for situations in Production, which obeyed those Pluralist Laws, were wrongly seen as exposing the "Real Underlying Reality" of the natural world.

But that isn't True!

Also, all insertions algebraically, from one Pluralist Law into another different one, are totally illegitimate! The whole universally-established Method of Mathematical Rationality as a means-of-extending these discoveries into a comprehensive valid discipline, are also totally mistaken when dealing with Reality-as-is.

But, Mathematical Plurality was universally employed because it validly enabled a whole and successful means of implementing a totally reliable Method of achieving Successful Consequential Productions, merely by breaking the Production Process down into a series of separate individual stages, each with its own physical restrictions and consequent Pluralist Laws!

And paired with the longtime-prior, pragmatist legitimiser of "If it works, it is right!" the New Approach vastly-enlarged what could possibly be done: for the new system was a truly major advance over what it replaced! And, it even encouraged the beginnings of a possible alternative and Causal Approach, with added-in possible notions of exactly why things behaved as they did.

Though the two sets of ideas did not mesh at all well, and Causal Explanations were never an integrated part of the Main System! Explanations provided merely a helpful accompanying narrative. And, any really-attempted causal explanations were restricted only to limited areas of study, which were naturally much closer to Pluralist situations, always due to these sustained periods of "Stability" (which could last millions of years, admittedly) as were evident in the Night Sky of the Heavens!

So, it is not surprising that such an evident conducive Tail would wag the confusing real Dog, and put the usually defeating nature of most of Reality as being due entirely to the large number of different active contributions overlying the hidden significant determinators! So, one way of "revealing" the "main determinator" in a not-too-complex system, would be to purposely-suppress all the "inessentials", and so completely reveal the underlying "main cause".

Science was deliberately converted into a wholly Pluralist Discipline, via Mathematics and pragmatism, because in such arranged-for situations, wholly successful productions were always possible, proving the value of the approach: though, of course, it could not lead to a successful integrated Theoretical System on the natural world - indeed a real Science- but only Technologies, involving many separate, achievable Contributing Productions, but NO integrated-and-cerebly-developable Theory.

Indeed, it is correct to insist that, at best, Mathematics can only deliver a partial Reflection of the Reality it seems to deliver, but simultaneously it can, in addition, deliver a whole collection of related features, BUT ONLY from elsewhere in the involved realm, where Mathematics legitimately reigns- that is within Ideality!

Indeed, Ideality, being only a Conceptual World of Pure Forms alone, enables Mathematics, but NOT Reality, to be infinitely extended! Many of the extensions to Mathematics, brought in to "explain" features of Reality that Plurality fails to deal with, are also totally illegitimate in Reality-as-is, so can tell us Absolutely Nothing: they seem not to exist anywhere in concrete Reality.

Maybe I should mention a few of these, in case you are in doubt!

How about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Entanglement, Multiple Universes, The Uncertainty Principle, The Heat Death of the Universe, The Big Bang, Initial Inflation, Infinite Expansion, Normalisation, and many, many more!

But many of the real problems caused by the Illusions of Plurality, can be compounded in various different ways: and perhaps the most important ones are those caused by the mistakes of Plurality, but complicated by the formulaic simplifications caused by substitutions from one pluralist equation into another, because, once two, or more equations have been merged in this way, the result will certainly NOT be delivered by using that combined Form, as the concrete result is never a single process, but still a simultaneous set of mutually effecting processes.

For though we have made a combined single Formula, in Reality such will still be individual processes competing for resources and producing outputs into a general pool of consequent resources, once again to be competed for. Yet, the original amounts of the various components now being lost in the new and different pool!

And the algebraically arrived-at formula cannot in any way mirror what is holistically going on in material Reality. 

And, to complicate things even further, apart from being essential resources, when each process proceeds separately, many secondary products from one process can and will affect another when all happening together: and these will be totally unknown from the wholly separate cases that delivered the supposedly contributing processes... 

Special Issue 61: Questioning Redshift

Special Issue 61

This collection of papers re-examines some of the problems and assumptions of Redshift in light of recent developments in Substrate Theory. If Redshift is not what Physicists say it is, the whole edifice of modern Cosmology and Astrophysics comes tumbling down - the Universe isn't expanding, there wasn't a Big Bang, etc. etc.

The problem of cosmological Redshift could be linked to the evolution of the cosmos as a whole, as well as that of individual new galaxies, and, most particularly, with the latter. For, the evidence of Redshift associated with these distant entities gathered by Halton Arp, cannot be explained in the usual way, because these are also intrinsically associated with “more-recently-created” dwarf Galaxies or Quasars. With various series of these, and each set presumably coming directly from a single source, Arp surprisingly found that their amounts of redshift appeared to be quantised.

Now, it could not be said that he purposely selected-out a subset of such entities from a diverse, non-conforming collection - Universe-wide, just to support his invented thesis, because they don’t do that at all! But, such evidence, also, does not gel with the usual consensus explanations of redshift either. 

But they might gel very well indeed with the alternative explanation of Quantization developed in this journal, dependant upon the assumed presence of a Universal Substrate, and its consequent evolution, as an intrinsic part of the Evolution of the Universe as a whole!

Red Shift and the "Quantum Bounce" (PART 2)

Sky Mirror, Red 2007 by Anish Kapoor

Read Part 1

The Red Shift in a Shell Universe

The possible effects of conditions, presumably at, or around, the limits of the Universe, upon the edges of a finite Universal Substrate, may also be relevant here.

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?

Let us muse a little further about the possibilities of the 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.

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

Red Shift and the "Quantum Bounce" (PART 1)

Introduction

The current evident interest in the idea of a Black Hole/White Hole Bounce which was suggested in order to “explain” the recently observed bursts of Radio Waves in Space, may sound somewhat like that idea of a collapsing Universe immediately turning into an on-going expansion of a seemingly, completely new one - but the theorists involved in the new suggestions don’t make that connection at all, for they are solely concerned with forcibly-adding as much “evidence” as possible into their pre-existing, purely-formal theories – in this case concerned with Loop Quantum Gravity (perhaps).

Hence, the whole exercise is totally non-physical! It amounts to formal/mathematical research, without an overt physical basis, yet again extrapolating to “infinity and beyond”!

But, surely, what is really required is a physical, explanatory assault upon such concrete data, along with the best possible physical models of what are supposed to be the entities and happenings involved? Any purely formal route is doomed to failure, for it has to be an incorrect path with its purely descriptive premises, so that it cannot take real explanation any further!

The physical premises, for those purely formal theories must be exposed, criticised and replaced, and a truly scientific attempt made to explain such phenomena physically undertaken.

The problem is that the total abandonment of explanatory theories in modern day Physics, leaves current theorists without a model to criticise and improve upon. Forms cannot be criticised! We have to work back from their current theories to expose what physical premises were assumed.

An Intrinsic Red Shift?

The Electric Universe group talk about a cosmic Red Shift that isn’t caused by a Doppler Effect - transforming the frequencies being observed. They assume instead that it is intrinsic to different modes of production within the developing atom.

Now, presumably, the usual explanation of radiation emitted by atoms assumes a particular context – say, in a vacuum, or, if not, they must be making the productions totally independent of any context!

Now, it is most probably the latter, but if a Universal Substrate exists, and is present not only as context for all atoms, but turns out to even be present within all atoms too, things could be different! For then, distortion of that substrate in extreme, external conditions, will definitely affect the electron orbits inside atoms, and cause changes in both emission and absorption frequencies, when such orbital transactions occur. This might be the only intrinsic modification of the emissions and absorptions in radiation, and hence will, in such extreme cases, affect the Red Shift too!

NOTE: As Red Shifts are so common, it would seem that the electron orbits must all be at lower energies, so that transitions down to lower energy levels will also be lower – towards the red end of the spectrum.

Now, we know that Solid, Liquid and Gas concentrations of atoms do not change the characteristic frequencies of emitted or absorbed radiation, so those modes of matter cannot change how atoms normally work! To find intrinsic modifications of the characteristic frequencies, we must consider extreme circumstances not usually encountered in the usual matter-phase modes. But, if those extreme conditions were to affect the Universal Substrate, that would also affect the insides of atoms, whatever phase they were in, and hence deliver the effects we are trying to explain. It could well be that normal phases are not extreme enough to make significant changes to the substrate. What must be involved will be conditions well beyond the usual ones.

It could be when stable concentrations of the Substrate are well outside the normal – in circumstances, for example when Matter is very highly concentrated, as in a Black Hole, or, alternatively, very sparsely concentrated, as at, or “beyond”, the Edge of the Universe! This being the case, we can assume that, within such an entity, the nature of the Substrate inside it can be significantly changed, so that the natural quantised orbits  will occur at different radii, due to different energy levels.

If we also go to the opposite extreme and consider the effects around the edges, then, once more, the electron orbits within the atom will be changed but in the opposite direction, due to the sparse nature of the Substrate.

Now, if these extreme cases are to throw light upon such things as the Red Shift, we will have to consider very carefully, what will be changed.

Obviously, when general radiation is so “red-shifted” (as seems to be the case for distant sources), we must adjust our measurements, to include the fact that we will be looking into the past, sometime long ago as well as far into the distance. It seems that, in this pretty well universal case, we may well be talking about the possible evolution of the Universal Substrate. It is unlikely to have always been there, exactly as we conceive it now!

It must have changed over time, as did everything else, and therefore, could not have been completely unaffected by the developments with which it had to be connected.

Remember, because looking into the distance in Space also means looking into the past, we already have evidence for the developments of Stars and even Galaxies.

For example, if some kind of Big Bang did happen, how does the establishment of the Universal Substrate fit into that changing scenario? And, even if some form of the Substrate preceded that Big Bang, it would unavoidably be successively modified both by that calamitous Event and its following consequences, with effects sweeping outwards from that “Point of Origin”.

In addition, we have to consider a natural “Temperature” of the Substrate over time. In current theories of the Universal Substrate it underpins many phenomena that use it as both sink and source for energy.

So the Substrate could always have contained a measure of Energy, either in the internal orbits of its component units, or in “whole unit” oscillations or translational travel too!

Hence the propagation of other energy would be promoting the internal orbits to levels above those necessary for its initial establishment, and any due to a general state of a region – its so-called “Temperature”!

NOTE: Though a particular unit with a promoted internal orbit will immediately demote it by transferring a quantum to another “empty” unit, when a whole area has all units with extra energy they will effectively equalise to the same internal “Temperature”.

This being the case, we have to consider how propagation would be affected. Remember, we have assumed that the Substrate does not alter the nature the propagation of so-called radiation: whatever it is, it will be propagated  totally unchanged! But first, how does our unit of Substrate manage that, and secondly, how may this be changed by circumstances?

NOTE: If the theories (of this researcher) concerning the role of the Universal Substrate, within an atom, and concerning quantized electrical orbits, are true, then the vortices caused in that substrate, by the orbiting of an electron, will be changed, if the Substrate differs from the classical form during extreme circumstances.

Clearly, if, for example, the density of the Substrate units were significantly changed (for some external reasons) the necessary matching of the orbit with the rotations of its caused vortices to bring about quantized orbits would also change, and the orbits will be at different radii (and different energy levels) though still close to what they were in normal circumstances.

We must determine how the behaviour of the vortices will be affected in a more densely packed Substrate within the atom. Now, if this caused the transitions between energy levels to be slightly lower, the energy of the released radiation would be lass, and the frequency would undergo a Red Shift – one that is intrinsic to the “Atom plus Substrate” system in those conditions. Also, a crucial factor (perhaps within or very close to a Black Hole) could involve a truly massive matter density, which might well distort the relationship between the orbiting electrons and the Substrate.

The more pressing problem is to explain the Red Shift that is merely from distant and past objects, but is internal rather than due to Doppler Shift. How could the radiation be altered either in initial production within the atom, or in transit while being propagated by units of the substrate?

A word about method!

Notice the very different demands upon Theory, between fitting formal (or even statistical) patterns to measured data, and the alternative of explaining that data via physical reasons in some form of concrete analogistic model. The former method is purely formal and includes no content or context information: it is merely a quantitative form-fitting to pre-existing ideal mathematical forms, whereas the latter MUST involve both content and context and explain phenomena in terms of substances and their properties in particular defining conditions.

Arp's Quasar-Galaxy associations challenge the received wisdom on Red Shift

 Addendum:

Halton Arp’s astronomical data may well be crucial in alighting upon a reasonable theory of intrinsic Red Shift. His data will have to be carefully studied, but at his Electric Universe Conference presentation he associated Red Shift with the initial creation and development of galaxies, which he gave evidence to show “budded-off” the hubs of mature galaxies and moved away perpendicular to the plane of the parent galaxy. What were most interesting were the changing Red Shifts as these new-born sub-galaxies moved away, for the Red Shift decline in seemingly quantised steps! It inferred that something determined these particular values, either in initial production or as they changed over time.

An explanation of these data if validated more generally, would imply similar possibilities on a galactic scale to those considered on a sub-atomic one – indeed, with a substrate at all levels.

PART 2 of this paper