Euclide vs Big Bang vs Standard Model

• ESA's Euclid mission is designed to explore the composition and evolution of the dark Universe. 
• The space telescope will create a great map of the large-scale structure of the Universe across space and time by observing billions of galaxies out to 10 billion light-years.
• Euclid will explore how the Universe has expanded and how structure has formed over cosmic history, revealing more about the role of gravity and the nature of dark energy and dark matter.

Big Bang is a cosmological theory stating that the Universe was created from a very hot very dense state of temperature $10^{32}$ Kelvin and size of a pinhead after $10^{-44}$ seconds, and then inflated/expanded into it's presently observable size of 10 billion light-years and average temperature of 3 K. Big Bang was invented by modern physicists in the 1960s searching for a mission after having completed the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, and is today accepted by almost all physicists. 

The previous post recalls that Leonard Susskind as leading theoretical physicists today, has come to the conclusion that the work on the Standard Model has to start over again, and so also the cosmological theory including Big Bang based on the Standard Model. OK?  

The main weakness of Big Bang is that no explanation is even attempted for the existence of a very dense very hot initial state: Creation of a 10 billion light-years Universe from a pinhead lacks physics. Of all Creation Myths in world history, Big Bang must be the most nonsensical.

So we have to start over again. I have been led to a model described in these posts as Neo-Newtonian Cosmology based on viewing gravitational potential $\phi (x,t)$ with $x$ a Euclidean coordinate and $t$ a time coordinate, as primordial role from which mass density $\rho (x,t)$ is "created" by the local action of the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\rho (x,t) = \Delta \phi (x,t)$ for all $x$,         (G1)

assumed to act without time delay for all $t$. Mass of variable sign is thus created locally for each $x$ by differentiation of a fluctuation as an instant local operation acting at each time instant $t$.  

The model is complemented by viewing electric potential $\psi (x,t)$ with $x$ a Euclidean coordinate and $t$ a time coordinate, as primordial from which charge density $\epsilon (x,t)$ is "created" by the local action of the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\epsilon (x,t) = \Delta\psi (x,t)$ for all $x$,         (G1)

assumed to act without time delay for all $t$. Charge of variable sign is thus created locally for each $x$ by differentiation of a fluctuation as an instant local operation acting at each time instant $t$.  

Let us collect basic elements of Neo-Newtonian Cosmology:

1. Mass/matter (ordinary and dark) and charge densities of variable sign are created by the Laplacian acting on fluctuations of zero gravitational and electric potentials. 
2. Attraction/repulsion of mass of same/different sign and charge of different/same sign creates microscale charges of different sign (Hydrogen atoms = proton + electron) and macroscale mass Universa of different sign moving away from each other (dark energy).
3. Kinetic energy in each Universe created by gravitational collapse. 
4. Start from 0 mass. Split into 0 = (+mass) + (-mass). Separate macroscale (+mass) from (-mass).
5. Start from 0 charge. Split 0 =(+charge)+(-charge). Combine microscale (+charge) with (-charge).

 

Neo-Newtonian Cosmology vs Big Bang

                                      Big Bang of Ylem into Inflation. 

Big Bang is a cosmological theory suggesting that the Universe originates from a very hot very dense initial state of very small size (named "Ylem"), which through a period of very strong inflation expanded into a very large void sparsely filled with a fine cosmic web of galaxies.  

Big Bang can be dismissed with reference to Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason since no clue is given to the formation of the very hot very dense very small size initial state. Big Bang describes a scenario for creation of Something Big (the Universe) from Something Big (hot dense initial state), while the real problem concerns creation of Something Big from Nothing or more reasonably: 

• Something Big from Something Small.  

Neo-Newtonian Cosmology NNC offers an alternative to Big Bang of this form. Here the initial state is a zero gravitational potential $\Phi =0$ satisfying the differential equation $\Delta\Phi =0$ with $\Delta$ the Laplacian differential operator in an infinite Euclidean coordinate space. 

From this zero initial state the Universe is then created from a small scale small amplitude large size perturbation $\phi$ of $\Phi$ with $\rho\equiv\Delta\phi$ appearing as a small scale large amplitude large size mass distribution of variable sign, which through segregation of positive and negative mass driven by gravitational force $\nabla\phi$ develops large regions with either positive or negative mass, which repel each other. Here the step from Small to Big is performed by the Laplacian differential operator acting on small spatial scales $h$ with multiplicative factor $h^{-2}$. 

NNC does not start from Nothing since an infinite empty Euclidean space capable of expressing Laplace equation $\Delta\Phi =0$ with a zero gravitational potential $\Phi =0$, is taken as given, but this is far less than the Ylem + Inflation of Big Bang. In NNC the Universe emerges from a small perturbation $\phi$ of $\Phi$ as Something Small through the action of the Laplacian and gravitational force as understood physics. 

The main support to Big Bang comes from an observed apparent expansion of the visible Universe from increasing redshift of far way galaxies, which when reversed in time gives a contracting Universe possibly leading back to an Ylem. But reversing time to recreate history may be impossible in the same sense as recreating a sharp image from a very blurred one. 

The Big Bang theory was first proposed by the catholic priest and mathematician Lemaître almost 100 years ago. It is strange that nothing more credible has been produced by modern physicists.

It was further developed by Alan Guth in 1980s as inflation theory suggesting an increase of the size of Ylem by a factor of $10^{26}$ in only a small fraction of a second. Only a modern physicist could come up with something like that... 

Summary:

• NNC describes creation by known physics of the Universe from a small perturbation in an Euclidean space with Laplacian. 
• Big Bang requires Ylem + Inflation both without known physics. 

Webb Telescope vs Big Bang?

The new James Webb Telescope has produced images with can be interpreted to be in conflict with the ruling cosmological theory named BigBang, or not:

• Webb Telescope: BigBang Wasn't The Beginning of Everything,
• Webb Telescope: BigBang may hold up after all. 

What to believe? BigBang or Not BigBang? The question is again on the table after a long period of dominance of BigBang. 

In recent posts (e g this followed by this) I put forward an alternative to BigBang starting from a null gravitational potential $\Phi =0$ as solution to the differential equation $\Delta\Phi =0$ with $\Delta$ the Laplace differential operator acting in an Euclidean space without boundary, from which substantial mass of variable sign $\rho =\rho_++\rho_-$ is created as the sum of positive mass $\rho_+$ and negative mass $\rho_-$ from a quickly oscillating perturbation $\phi$ of $\Phi$ of small amplitude as $\rho =\Delta\phi$, with repulsion between positive and negative mass,  eventually forming a Universe with positive mass well separated from an anti-Universe with negative mass both subject to gravitational attraction.

This signals a possible creation of something big from something small by a process of differentiation, connecting to that described in Genesis 1:4: 

• And God separated the light from the darkness.

It is further possible to connect dark matter to $\rho_+$ of small amplitude, and dark energy to influence from the anti-Universe.

The features of this scenario are:

• Pre-existence of a Euclidean space with solution $\Phi =0$ of $\Delta\Phi$, like an un-plucked guitar string tuned to 440 Hz.
• Creation of substantial mass $\rho =\Delta\phi$ of variable sign from quickly oscillating small amplitude perturbation of $\Phi$.
• Repulsion between positive and negative mass segregating $\rho$ into a Universe with positive mass and an anti-Universe with negative mass.  

We can compare this scenario with BigBang for which a key mystery is the required initial state as very hot and very dense. It may be that the Webb Telescope will show no support to anything like that and so make BigBang fade away. 

In any case, the question of why there is something rather than nothing will continue to trigger speculations. 

 

Can Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation be Measured, Really?

The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation CMB is supposed to be a 14 billion year after-glow with perfect Planck blackbody spectrum at temperature $T=2.725$ Kelvin K of a Universe at $T=3000$ K dating back to 380.000 years after Big Bang. The apparent 1000-fold temperature drop from 3000 to 3 K is supposed to be the results of an expansion and not cooling.  

To get an idea of the magnitude of CMB let us recall that a Planck spectrum at temperature $T$ stretches over frequencies $\nu\sim T$ and  reaches maximum radiation intensity $E\sim T^3$ near the end with a high frequency cut-off over an interval $\frac{\nu}{T}\sim 1$ (notice exponential scale):

 

The $10^3$-fold temperature drop thus corresponds to a $10^9$ decrease of maximum intensity and $10^3$ decrease in spectrum width. Intensity over width decreases with a factor $10^6$ as a measure of precision in peak frequency. 

We understand that to draw conclusions concerning a 3000 K spectrum from a measured 3 K spectrum requires a very precision on the level of microKelvin or 0.000001 K. Is this really possible? Is it possible to reach the precision 2.725 K from intensity maximum? 

Why is modern physics focussed on measuring quantities which cannot be measured, like ghosts?

CMB was first detected as noise maybe from birds visiting antennas, but the noise persisted even after antennas were cleaned and then the conclusion was drawn that CMB must be left-over from Big Bang 14 billion years ago and not from any birds of today.  Big Bang is physics, while birds is ornithology. 

Does a Photon have Temperature?

The idea about the Cosmic Microwave Background CMB radiation is conveyed to the public by authoritative sources as follows starting at the creation of the Universe with a Big Bang:

• After about 380,000 years when the Universe had cooled to around 3000 Kelvin,  photons were able to move unhindered through the Universe: it became transparent.
• Over the intervening 14 billion years, the Universe has expanded and cooled greatly. Due to the expansion of space, the wavelengths of the photons have grown (they have been ‘redshifted’) to roughly 1 millimetre and thus their effective temperature has decreased to just 2.7 Kelvin. 
• These photons fill the Universe today (there are roughly 400 in every cubic centimetre of space) and create a background glow that can be detected by far-infrared and radio telescopes.

We meet the idea that photons are moving through space like some form of particles with effective temperature of 2.7 K filling the Universe as an after-glow of Big Bang. 

But the concept of photon lacks real physics. Light does not consist of a stream of light particles named photons, but is an electromagnetic wave phenomena and as such can have a frequency and an amplitude/intensity. An emitter of light like the Sun has a temperature, while the light emitted is characterised by its spectrum as intensity vs frequency. A spectrum can give information about the temperature of the emitter with the Planck spectrum the spectrum of an ideal blackbody at a certain temperature with in particular a high-frequency cut-off scaling linearly with temperature. 

Emitted light can be recieved by an antenna through resonance recording the frequency. It is also possible to record the temperature of an emitter by connecting the antenna to a form of radiation thermometer reading temperature from radiative equilibrium, in the same way as a common thermometer reads the temperature of a source by direct contact/equilibrium.  

But is more difficult to read a spectrum since properties of emissivity, transmissivity and absorptivity as well as view angles enter. In the absence of information a Planck spectrum is often assumed, but most emitters do not have blackbody spectra.

A Big Bang emitter at 3000 K is thus postulated with an after-glow received as a blackbody spectrum of 3 K with frequency reduced and wave length increased by a factor of 1000 into far-infrared. 

What is effectively measured is a combination of temperature and intensity, which shows up as a perfect blackbody spectrum. The message is that this is an after-glow of Big Bang, thus giving evidence to Big Bang: If there is an after-glow there must have been some glow to start with = Big Bang. More precisely, it is variations letting the antenna sweep the sky, which are measured and have to be given a physical meaning as some variability of the Early Universe. 

The basic idea is thus that photons have been traveling through empty space for 14 billion years under a stretching of a factor 1000 but no other influence, and that collecting these photons gives a picture of the Early Universe. This appears as a lofty  speculation cleverly designed as to prevent inspection because both theory and instrumentation are hidden in mist. Here is the main picture from The Music of the Big Bang by Amedo Balbi: 

The source is thus gone since 14 billion years, while the after-glow still surrounds us and can be measured. This is mind boggling. 

Let us compare with the picture presented as Computational Blackbody Radiation, where emitter and receiver establish contact by resonance of electromagnetic waves and so take on the same temperature by reaching radiative equilibrium, in the same way as two distant tune forks can find an equilibrium.

What about the time delay between emitter and receiver from finite speed of light? If a light source is switched on, it will take some time before it reaches a receiver. Is it the same when a light source is switched off? Do you feel being warmed even a while after the fire is dead? What about a solar eclipse? Does it take 8 minutes before we feel the cold? 

In any case, the connection between Big Bang which is gone since 14 billion years and a proclaimed after-glow, which we can enjoy today from the presence of about 400 photons in every cubic centimetre of space at 3 K, appears as science fiction to me at least. 

Radiation as electromagnetic waves needs a source to sustain over time. If the Big Bang source to CMB disappeared 14 billion years ago, the electromagnetic waves have so to speak have a life of their own over very long time, like a tsunami wave sweeping the Pacific long after the earth quake source has disappeared. Here the ocean acts as a physical medium carrying the energy, while a corresponding medium for electromagnetic waves as an aether has no physical presence. The energy is thus carried by the source some of which is transmitted to the receiver in resonance. 

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation vs Big Bang?

This is a continuation of a previous post on the same topic. The European Space Agency ESA sends this message to the people of Europe and the World:

• The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe.
• Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. Over time, this primeval light has cooled and weakened considerably; nowadays we detect it in the microwave domain.

More precisely, CMB is reported to be measured by the FIRAS Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) instrument on the COBE satellite as a very small temperature variation (18 $\mu K$) over a uniform background of a perfect blackbody spectrum at 2.725 $K$. The main difficulty is to isolate a very weak signal from very far away from more nearby signals including signals from the Earth atmosphere and oceans.  

To understand the technology of the measurement, which is not easy, we take a look at the FIRAS instrument to see what it contains:

 What we see is in particular the following:

• Sky Horn collecting input from the Sky.
• Xcal reference blackbody used for calibration of Sky Horn input.
• Ical reference blackbody for internal calibration.
• Ical is equipped with two germanium resistance thermometers (GRT).
• Xcal is monitored by three GRTs.
• FIRAS = Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer.

The output of FIRAS consists of:

• A very small temperature variation of size 0.00002 K over a background of 2.725 K.
• The measured background spectrum is a perfect Planck blackbody spectrum. 

CMB spectrum as perfect Planck blackbody spectrum. But low frequencies in the far infrared spectrum are missing! 

We see warning signs: 

• Very high precision is reported!
• Perfect Planck blackbody spectrum is reported. But far infrared is missing. 
• Calibration to nearly perfect real blackbodies is made. 
• Temperature of 3 K from very far reported.  
• Spectrum as radiative flux is reported (spectrophotometer).

More understanding comes from plotting the spectrum in terms of frequency:

We here see the COBE-FIRAS (blue) measures intensity at maximum around 200 GHz and a bit beyond for higher frequencies in the cut-off region, while the more essential part of the spectrum in the far infrared is missing. The intensity maximum around 200GHz according to Planck's law corresponds to a temperature of about 3 K, which however, since the essential part of the spectrum is missing, may as well correspond to much higher temperature at much lower emissivity.

In previous posts we have reminded that measurement of temperature is possible by establishing radiative equilibrium between source and instrument/thermometer, but it requires disturbances between source and instrument to be small, which poses a challenge to directly measuring temperature of CMB from very far. 

The alternative in this case is to report temperature from spectrum. But directly measuring radiative flux/spectrum can be even more challenging. Typically this is done (using bolometers and pyrometers) by measuring temperature, and then computing radiative flux/spectrum using Planck's law under assumptions hard to verify. This makes assessing CMB to a very daunting task from a mix of measurement and computation of temperature and radiative flux.

The scenario is thus:

• If a correct full spectrum is measured, a temperature can be determined from the frequency of maximal intensity. 
• If only temperature is given, determining spectrum as radiative flux intensity, requires post processing. 
• A measured/computed temperature of 3K attributed to a very far away source may be misleading.
• Robitaille suggesting that the true origin of the the 3 K CMB is the oceans of the Earth at 300 K.  

To sum up, we have on the table: 

1. Very speculative Big Bang BB.
2. CMB with questionable credibility, maybe noise from Earth Ocean,  

The argument by mainstream physicists/cosmologists is now that since the main role of CMB is to serve as main evidence of Big Bang, and CMB shows to serve this role in such an excellent way, it gives credibility to CMB by being connected to something very big. BB thus supports CMB, which gives support to BB. 

One possibility is then that both BB and CMB are real phenomena The other possibility is that both are free speculations by scientists in search of a mission. What is your impression? 

PS Has COBE-FIRAS detected the same thing as WMAP and PLANCK further away from the Earth:

Which picture is most credible? The more details, the more credible? What happens with small details over time according to the 2nd Law? 

A Stage for Big Bang as Separation: $0 =\Delta\phi$

The previous post presented a stage for the creation of gravitational mass and electric charge as the fundamental components of the World, in the form of the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$ with respect to a Euclidean space coordinate $x$ acting on a potential $\Phi (x)$ satisfying the equation 

• $\Delta\Phi (x) = 0$ for all $x$.     (1)

With $\Phi (x)$ vanishing for large $x$ the potential $\Phi (x) = 0$ for all $x$ and so represents a null state like a guitar string at rest before plucking or a stage prepared for a play.   

Suppose now the null state $\Phi$ is subject to a highly oscillating perturbation $\phi (x)$ and consider the  assignment:

• $\rho (x) =\Delta\phi (x)$ for all $x$,    (2)

where $\rho (x)$ can be large even if $\phi (x)$ is small because differentiation makes small oscillations big, and so a substantial $\rho (x)$ can emerge from a small perturbation. 

It is possible to view this as a form of Big Bang with creation seemingly out of nothing.  Here (1) sets a stage of possibilities and (2) represents realisation of possibilities as creation of $\rho (x)$ representing  mass or charge density. 

Note that (2) amounts to a "separation" into positive and negative mass/charge out of a zero state, and so the "creation" of $\rho (x)$ is the result of a process of separation, maybe easier to understand than direct creation out of nothing: God separated the light from the darkness.

Also recall that Hesiod's Chaos has been interpreted as the gaping void above the Earth created when Earth and Sky are separated from their primordial unity. The prerequisite for creation is a Euclidean space with a Laplacian differential operator prepared for separation.  

Even if this model "explains" creation of mass and charge, the question remains of how the geometry of Euclidean space with Laplacian as the stage (1) is prepared. Maybe Euclide knew but didn't tell.  

Note if the "creation" happened once it may happen again. Separation does not require massive input of energy and the required energy to form create matter/radiation can come from gravitational collapse in a net zero game, once positive and negative mass have been separated into new Universa.  

For a more detailed specification see the previous post New Newtonian Cosmology and chap 32 in Computational Thermodynamics. In particular, notice conservation of total energy as kinetic energy plus heat energy minus gravitational energy, where gravitational energy thus can feed kinetic and heat energy. This gives an answer to the question from where the energy comes in a conventional Big Bang scenario. 

A notable aspect in the case of separation into positive and negative charges connecting to Real Quantum Mechanics, is that of charge conservation as a result of the conservation law of electromagnetics: 

• $\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot J =0$

where $J=\rho v$ current with $v$ charge velocity, from which follows that 

• $\int_{\Omega}\rho dx = constant$, 

where $\Omega$ is the domain where $\rho (x)>0$ or where $\rho (x)<0$ separated by a boundary where $\rho (x)=0$. In particular this motivates why in Real Quantum Mechanics a proton meets an electron with vanishing charge densities, answering a question raised in this post. The number of protons which is equal to the number of electrons does not change over time.  

 

Mystery of Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Inflation Uncovered?

In a series of posts (listed under Newtonian mechanics) I have explored the idea of viewing the gravitational potential $\phi (x,t)$ as primordial physical entity, with $x$ a Euclidean space coordinate and $t$ a time coordinate $t$, from which the distribution of matter with density $\rho (x,t)$ is given by (with scaling to unity):

• $\Delta\phi (x,t) =\rho (x,t)$          (1)     

by the local operation of differentiation of the Laplacian in space $\Delta$. This view possibly opens  to an understanding of the mystery of both dark energy, dark matter and cosmic inflation. Recall that (1) as the essence of Newton's theory of gravitation, also is Einstein's equation in flat Minkowski space-time.

To lift the curtain, imagine an initial state with $\phi =0$ and thus $\rho =0$ and suppose $\phi$ at time $t=0$ is  subject to a local perturbation resulting in a corresponding fluctuating $\Delta\phi$ with as much positive matter where $\Delta\phi (x,t)$ is positive, as negative matter where  $\Delta\phi (x,t)$ is negative. Suppose the initial configuration consists of negative matter surrounded by positive matter in spherical symmetry, thus a shell/ball of negative matter (red) surrounded by positive matter (blue), as in the above picture of a youtube-clip.  Note that positive matter attracts positive matter, but repels negative matter, and vice versa.

Watching the clip you see starting from rest negative (red) matter contracting under attraction and positive matter (blue) expanding under repulsion from negative matter overpowering attraction from positive matter.

If we now think of our Universe as consisting of positive matter, we thus find an expanding Universe as if driven by a mysterious force named dark energy and we thus are led to connect the origin of dark energy to negative matter.  Note that the core of negative matter oscillates between contraction and expansion, while the region of positive matter continues to expand on a much longer time scale.

We may further connect regions of positive matter where $\Delta\phi (x,t)$ is smooth as regions filled with dark matter, and then singular concentrations of $\Delta\phi (x,t)$ as visible matter.  

In this model we start from zero, and Big Bang is represented by a small perturbation of the gravitational potential $\phi$ with large output $\Delta\phi$ as balancing positive and negative matter. It is then the nature of the Laplacian as local differentiation, as an illposed or unstable mathematical operation, which can turn a small perturbation into something big like a Universe. Big Bang thus does not come out as a big local explosion, for which a reason is lacking, but rather as the effect of a small perturbation of a zero-state which is inflated by the Laplacian.

In particular, the inflation of the Universe connects to the relation $\Delta\phi =\rho$ and not as in cosmic inflation theory to yet another mystery.

Finally, with matter derived from a gravitational potential by local differentiation, the unsolved problem of the nature of action at distance does show up at all: All action is local and there is no action at distance and nothing of that sort to explain.

Is then our expanding Universe of positive matter powered by an oscillating Universe of negative matter, with plus and minus adding to zero, resulting from an initial perturbation of a gravitational potential through the action of a Laplacian? Yes, why not? Compare with Genesis 1:1-4 with the initial perturbation just a little twist of God's finger: