From: Damien Broderick (damienb@unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003 - 19:59:06 MDT
FWIW, here's a recent post to another list by Dr Evan Harris Walker, a
quantum theorist with radical ideas:
==============================
The recent visit to the tooth fairy to find quick fixes to recent
difficulties with the proposed "inflation" modification of the well
established Big Bang theory gave us dark matter. And now the latest trip to
that tooth fairy to fix the fix gives us dark energy.
Both dark matter and dark energy hypotheses arise as quick fixes to problems
relating to the well established general relativity of the very early Big
Bang universe. These data arise because of the application of one of our
cornerstones, general relativity, to a particular problem under development
that lies outside the domain of mesoscale physics. The properties of both
dark matter and of dark energy are such that they do not play a role in
mesoscale physics. The dark matter because it is believed by those who
propose it that it was made during the first moments of the universe when
the temperature of the universe was at energy levels some 13 orders of
magnitude higher than anything achievable on earth today, and represents
leftover non-interacting debris. Dark energy is believed to be an effect
that has to do with the hypothetical cosmological constant that comes into
play when very vast regions of space are involved, or when we are dealing
with very vast amounts of matter, many galaxies at a time, or when doing
things in the early morning of the universe. Though these are hypothetical,
the physics constraints are still present. These hypothetical animals of
cosmology are themselves as constrained as to what they can be allowed to do
as is the physics of the matter in the brain.
Translate any of these into their effects on the mesoscale, and they vanish.
Neither dark matter or dark energy mitigate either general relativity or
quantum mechanics to the slightest degree. The proposed particles lie
outside the standard model, but they also lie outside the realm of the
energy ranges achievable in any interactions on earth, even in billion
dollar accelerators -- a limitation I expressed early on.
Now, I have spent about 15 years studying the problems mentioned here, so my
remarks are not off hand. Dark matter was proposed because inflation theory
needed more matter than was seen. The universe seems rather flat, but
flatness requires something like 10^-29 grams per cc (as I recall the
number) matter density in the universe based on general relativity. There is
observationally a 95% short-fall in this number (the exact number varies).
Since that matter was not seen, it was hypothesized to exist anyway -- sort
of the way invisable pink elephants are introduces, or that Harvey friend of
Jimmy Stewart.
I have proposed that the reason for this density short-fall results from the
first generation of stars that formed when the universe first cooled to
about 1000 degrees at 300,000 years of age. At that time, 1,000,000 solar
mass stars began to form. The heat restricted what size stars could formed
to this million solar mass size. The portion of matter forming these is
calculable: 4%. Because of their mass, these stars burn and collapse very
fast. Because the universe does not spin, these stars are different from
most present stars and when they collapse because they immediately collapse
into black holes; within a millisecond, they reach their endpoint.
Now non-rotating black hole stars pose something of a problem in physics.
The matter must go to a singularity -- infinitely small, infinite density,
infinite temperature. As they collapse, they retrace the steps in the Big
Bang.
I made the proposal that as this happened, the "inflationary" episode of the
Big Bang would be retraced inside that Black Hole mass, and that would mean
that rather than matter coming out of the vacuum as happened during the Big
Bang inflation, the matter would go back into the vacuum. This is based on
somewhat generally accepted Big Bang inflation-era physics.
If we suppose that to be the case, then the following happens:
1. 1/3 the mass of each supermassive star, or about 1.3% of the mass of the
universe would vanish (this is based on details as to how black hole
collapse happen in supermassive stars. The collapsing "stream" breaks into
segments).
2. This would send out a gravitational pulse detectable in the Weber-style
gravitational wave detectors at the rate of about 12/day seen by Weber (his
observed rate was 17/day). But Weber had been discredited because he was
seeing things that could not be there! Those of you who were at the Dallas
(as I remember) Texas PA meeting may recall Feynman ridiculing Joe Weber,
and may remember I stood up to take issue with him, both about Weber and
about his trite remarks about parapsychology. "Professor Feynman, I know
Professor Weber. I am sure if he were here, he would be able to adequately
defend his work. I am sure that I speak for everyone in saying I am
disappointed with your talk. I was hoping you would talk to us about
something you have expertise in, namely theoretical physics. Many of the
people here have more knowledge in experimental design than you have and
probably know more than you about statistical procedures." At the time I had
worked out some of the details having to do with this proposal I am
discussing here.
3. This would also result in the gamma ray bursters seen at the rate of
1/day (the rate is calculable) with gamma rays at 300 Kev red-shifted down
from their original neutron-mass energy of 300 Mev. (The red shift comes
from the fact that they are at the edge of the expanding universe.) This
1/day rate is lower than that of the gravitational pulses seen by Weber
because the gammas can be absorbed and scattered in the dense environment of
the early universe while gravitational effects are not. The difference given
here is a calculated result.
4. The loss of matter would mean that the density of the universe would go
immediately from 100% of critical density for flatness to 98.7%.
5. As time passed, this 1.3% short-fall in density at universe-age of
300,000 to 1 million years would become a 95% absence of matter at present,
about 13.8 billion years. Because astronomers cannot find the 100% matter
for critical density needed for flatness, they have invented dark matter to
make up for what is missing from their theory.
6. As the density dropped further and further from criticality for flatness,
the expansion would accelerate (as I said back in 1990), giving the
impression of an accelerating force, or dark energy.
7. When the 1.3% mass was lost, the rest of the 4% in these superstars, 2.7%
of the mass of the universe, would be expelled in the resulting explosion as
mass-loss resulted in the loss of gravitational confinement.
8. This 2.7% would come out as neutron star matter and decay into the 2.7%
of the now observed 3% heavy element content of the universe, the remaining
0.3% being formed later by stragglers and more recent supernovas.
9. The proposal removes the so-called "bounce problem" having to with
understanding how supernovas work in detail. (It is presently proposed that
this comes about from turbulence -- a catch-all.) Actually, the mass loss
that happens at the end of the black hole formation when the mass vanished
into the vacuum results in a loss of gravitational confinement in the
supercompressed left-over neutron star.
10. There happens to be a gap in the way super-massive stars behave when
they collapse. This gap comes between 500,000 solar masses and 750,000 solar
masses. The result is that the distribution of the gamma ray bursters would
be bi-modal. This is an otherwise unexplained aspect of the observed data
for gamma ray bursters.
This is hardly exhaustive. I
could go into further details of the Robertson-Walker-Friedmann model of
general relativity and how that mathematics gives rise to these effects and
the development of the universe, but more of that can be found and read at
the website: http://users.cvom/wcri/wcri
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 28 2003 - 20:16:55 MDT