From the time of Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac and the other last century giants physics of the the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the search has been on to find a unifying theory; to date without success. The two theories that seemed closest to achieving the goal, Super String and Brane, have had decades in which to verify their claims but both have fallen at the hurdles of proof and prediction.
Many physicists and cosmologists think that there is a need for a unifying theory because, while relativity explains the mechanics of the macro- universe it has no place in the sub-atomic realm which can only be explained via quantum mechanics, with no marriage of the two. Both explanations of the universe do seem to function very well in their own areas of expertise but once outside that area they fail completely. How is this apparent paradox to be explained? Surely there are not two totally different ways of observing the same universe; one for the large and one for the small. Even though it does not yet exist, the unifying theory has been called the Unified Field Theory and nicknamed the theory of everything and the holy grail of physics. We think it is possible that what we are about to outline in this paper is that holy grail and we present this as a means of promoting discussion. However, there is no mathematical solution presented here as that is not our forte, we are more interested in the general philosophy of physics and cosmology. We merely wish to present concepts on which we hope a future mathematical structure may be established; we leave the nuts and bolts to others who may, if this theory turns out to be tenable, wish to claim the mathematical kudos for themselves.
To make sense of our observations of the universe we have to account for the fact that about ninety five percent of its expected mass does not seem to exist. To allow for this unobserved mass, the theory of dark matter has been invented. It is also necessary to account for measurements that tell us that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing velocity. Without some mechanism causing this ever-increasing rate of expansion it would seem that the laws of physics and rationality have been overturned and so the theory of dark energy has been created. The existence of both dark matter and dark energy are somewhat controversial and neither was predicted by the big bang theoretical origin of the universe. In spite of the fact that today’s cosmologists claim that Einstein, while working on the theory of General Relativity, produced the first mathematical formulæ that would have accounted for the existence of dark energy, Einstein himself rejected those formulæ as being unworthy of a rational explanation of reality. In fact, he seems to have admitted to fudging his maths to allow for the result in the first place.
As currently postulated we think that neither dark matter nor dark energy are required to explain the universe we observe but, to understand what we are looking at, we need to change our concepts about its origin. In fact, we need to replace the idea that the universe even had an origin because it seems to us the imagery of a universe that has a beginning and an end arises from religious thinking of previous ages. If a god created the universe it had a time of origin and if its purpose eventually comes to an end - as many religions claim – then it will obviously have an end. But, just because science has observed that the universe is expanding this does not mean it is expanding from some prime source or that the expansion will continue until it eventually runs out of energy and snuffs out like a flickering candle. Neither does it mean that the opposite possibility will happen; the universe, drawn back in by its own gravity, will collapse back into a minute singularity in an event called the big crunch. Yes, there is such a thing as entropy; but is it a universal law or just a local one? Is it a constant, or relative? Is the universe actually entropically decaying or is the entropy we see merely our lack of perception? We think the present ideas about the beginning and end and the entropic decay of the universe come from minds that have developed in religious societies where the beginning and the end of the universe is a given and a cultural bias; we think there is another and more exciting possible scenario.
To understand this possible scenario it is important to get past the idea, presently held by physicists and cosmologists, that infinity has no place in our theories about the universe. This word, infinity, does not mean anything other than the measurements we make of the universe are purely arbitrary, relate only to our own means of observation and are ultimately useless. They do allow us to move from one level of comprehension to another but in the end each level requires its own mode of mathematical understanding. The mathematics of Newton’s universe will not function in today’s quantum and relative sciences; today’s mathematics would have been mumbo jumbo to Newton. We accept that there are constants or invariables in the universe, such as the speed of light and the half life of radioactive materials but the actual figures we put on these are quite arbitrary and, in the final analysis, always relative to some other observation made by ourselves who are, after all, observers in a relative universe. Infinity does not mean some event that goes on endlessly or something that occupies all of space forever and ever amen, although it seems that these are the only two meanings used for the word. Quantum physicists provide us with endless dissertations about the characteristics and nature of quantum particles, about which we are not complaining, but one might be left with the impression from all this erudite material that they actually know what they are describing. The particles they talk about are actually only electrical charges or polarities of various kinds and when they can tell us what these charges and polarities actually are, how much space they occupy and where in space and time they are actually located we will accept that the universe is finite. While particle/charges behave as quantum units do - being fields smeared throughout space/time on the one hand and as locatable particles as soon as we observe or measure them on the other, then the universe is infinite. Infinity actually means ‘beyond the dimensions of space/time’ and from the quantum physics and big bang perspective at least this is what the universe is.
If we accept the big bang theory as it stands, we have also to accept that space and time did not exist before the universe came into being. This means that when the universe did arrive and time and space began to exist, they could only do so within whatever the universe is. As the universe came into being and began to expand it did so into something that did not and therefore still does not, exist. For the universe to expand there had to be space prior to its existence into which it could expand. But this is not the case, there was no pre-existent space and so as nothing exterior to the universe exists then the universe itself does not have an exterior; if it does not have an exterior it follows that it does not have an interior as the one needs the other. Therefore, the universe could not have begun to expand, inflate or explode or in any other way enlarge as it could only do this in space/time within itself but, regardless of our observations, it doesn’t have a within. We can go round and round this circle for as long as we like but we think the reasoning is clear; either the universe does not have dimensions in the way we observe and space/time is entirely relative and should be treated as such and not as an absolute constant, or there is something very wrong with the big bang theory.
Let us look at another rather peculiar aspect of the big bang theory. Prior to the big bang it is thought that the universe was a singularity; some cosmologists and physicists think of this as being nothing while others - unable to deal with the concept - like to think of it as a very small object. The latter really put themselves out of the race as a really small object still occupies space/time and we already know that space/time did not exist prior to the bang. So, before it came into being, the universe is left as a non-existent singularity and that seems to us to be rather nonsensical.
Another thing that seems odd to us is the issue of the red shift. From the time of Hubble’s discovery of the red shift it seems as if all cosmologists have accepted that it has to pertain to an expanding universe and could not possibly be explained any other way. The expanding universe dogma has become a holy creed and it seems as if little thought has gone into researching alternatives. There are alternatives available.
If we put all this and space/time to one side for a moment and consider just the singularity idea then we would have to agree that if the universe was a singularity before the big bang it would behave as one thing not a plurality; it would contain no physical matter. But if it was made of some plasma-like stuff then it would be super-fluidic with absolutely no friction and it would be super conductive. As the singularity is the source of both energy and matter, the velocity of any motion, or potential motion, within it must be at least C2 – with C being the universal constant equalling the speed of light - and like energy it must be in all directions and through all planes simultaneously. So, how does the universe, as we observe it, differ from this?
We have shown above that the universe does not have an exterior or an interior and so it does not have anything but relative dimension; that is, its dimensions depend on our observations. If this is the case the universe is behaving as one thing regardless of what we think we observe; to do otherwise requires dimension. Quantum physics has quite clearly shown that within this universe all matter is the result of our observation and that it is actually accumulations of particles that are themselves nothing more than charges, polarities or located peaks of energy. This energy has a potential motion of C2 and it moves in all dimensions and through all planes simultaneously. According to cosmologists the universe is an ocean of light photons that were produced at, and have continued being produced since, the first seconds of the big bang, not necessarily always of the visible wave length but there nevertheless. According to physicists, however, space is more like an ocean of virtual particles or the zero point energy field. One can make one’s own choice but it all sounds very much as if the old forbidden word of æther is being surreptitiously replaced. In any case, whichever choice we make, the medium being described is a C2 velocity, fluidic medium and as the temperature of the universe is the lowest ideal for the maintenance of a Bose-Einstein condensate super-fluid (-270oC) then the virtual particle/zero-point/photonic energy field is probably a super-fluid.
Super-fluids behave as singularities and because of this they have some rather remarkable properties; they are frictionless and when they are rotated they tend to form vortices. When paired, those vortices can behave as opposite pole particles or when there are numerous vortices they can form lattices that behave as a solid unit and action upon any part of the super-fluid causes a reaction from the whole. Being frictionless the universal super-fluid will be almost impossible to measure and appear to be non-existent; because it is moving through every plane and in every direction simultaneously it will behave as a rotating super-fluid and form vortices within itself. To all intents and purposes, these vortices will be infinite in number and are more likely to be what we think of today as virtual particles, zero point particles or photons.
Because super-fluid vortices are able to form lattice-like groupings they will, depending on their grouping with other vortices and whether they are coming into being or fading out, display the various attributes of quarks, such as colour, flavour, up, down and strange. Then, because these lattice-like groups must also rotate and form larger vortices within the same super-fluid and depending on their direction and plane of rotation and the manner in which they in turn group with other groups, they will appear as positive, negative or neutral charges.
This process of lattice grouping and vortex formation must continue ceaselessly throughout the universe at all levels from the quark and particle which have just been described right up to the galactic and super galactic group size, and further. The first conclusion we must draw from this deduction is that the super-fluid is the missing dark matter. Having said this we need to also say that the super-fluid is all there is and that which we see as matter - the remaining five percent of the universe, is only the super-fluid become visible to us at a given particular level; be that galactic, quark or anything in between.
The universe is a super-fluid moving (rotating) at C2 velocity through all planes and in all directions simultaneously and so it is a singularity. The vortices within the super-fluid are not particular, even though they appear to us to be so and they are not separate from the whole body of the fluid, even though they appear to us to be so, any more than a vortex in a river or ocean is particular or separate.
All vortices have a most peculiar attribute which, because we are so used to seeing it, we seem to take almost no notice of; for the following example we will just use a vortex in water. Even though all the water in the vortex is moving in the same general direction (from the surface of the water to the base and focus of the vortex) every part is moving away from every other part at an ever increasing velocity, even though it looks as if every part is actually getting closer and closer. In a rotational fashion all of the water is moving at the same velocity but the water at the surface moves over a greater distance than does the water at the focus and so appears to be moving slower than the rest. But in a linear fashion the water at or near the focus is moving away from the water immediately above much faster than the water at the surface is moving towards the water immediately below it. If we were able to place a series of dots on the face of the water within the vortex we would find that the dots nearest the surface would be moving toward the focus much more slowly than the dots that were nearer the focus and that they would all be moving away from each other. Which is, of course, what all the dots in the universe - which we call stars and galaxies, are doing. In the water there is no need of a dark energy for this phenomenon to happen.
So let us put this image on to the stage of the universal field. The universe is a super-fluidic vortex in which all the stars and galaxies are the dots which we have just mentioned. As we look out into this universe, in any direction, we will see that all other stars and galaxies appear to be moving away from us and the further away from us they appear to be the more rapidly they are moving. This accounts for the red shift without the need for the universe to be expanding. It is quite correct the furtherest stellar objects are moving away the fastest or we are moving away from them at an ever-increasing rate. But none of them are moving in a different direction to ourselves as everything is moving in the same direction.
According to this image of the universe the youngest objects, which we observe as being the furtherest away, are at the surface of the vortex and even though they appear to be moving away from us they are in fact moving towards the place in the vortex in which we reside at this point in time, while we are moving ever closer at an ever increasing rate toward the focus at which is the black hole that will signal our demise. Instead of the youngest stellar objects being the remnants of the early universe shortly after the big bang they are in fact new objects that continue to appear out of the super-fluidic medium just prior to entering into their journey down the vortex. That surface-like level of the vortex appears to provide the right conditions for the creation of new stellar objects in a way that does not seem to be found in any other part of the vortex.
As stellar objects and their relationships age and progress further and further down the vortex they get closer and closer to the other end of the system which is the focus of the vortex, known to us as black holes. There are black holes at the centre of galaxies and we are sure it will be found that there are black holes at the centre of galactic groups. These super dense objects are not at the centre of galaxies because the galaxies have formed and they are not at the centre of galactic clusters because stellar masses coalesced into these great masses. They are there because they are the focus of a vortex in the super-fluidic medium. It is this vortex which brings into being the right conditions for stellar objects, from stars to galaxies, to form groups and inter-act in a mirror of the way in which the universal vortex creates the right conditions for the creation of stellar matter at the ‘surface’ of the vortex. They then progress on their journey through the vortex to the other end where they get dispersed, by the black hole, back into the super-fluidic medium.
It would seem to us that the reasonably even temperature distribution throughout the universe revealed by the Kobe satellite project is not necessarily the result of the time elapsed since the big bang or the reasonably flat energy distribution of that event. The same result would be expected if new stellar material is being continuously formed in that area of the universe that has, until now, been considered the remnants of that big bang explosion. As vortices lock themselves into lattice-like structures which we perceive as solid matter, the energy fluctuations would be gradually dispersed throughout the multi-dimensional vortex by the rotational forces. This multi-dimensional vortex does not look like the whirlpool or tornado we might imagine; if it does have shape then it would be something like an oblate ovoid. This being the case all radiation from the universe would impinge on our instruments in such a way that the x-ray and infra-red images would look exactly as we see them; flat in every direction.
We think that one of the strongest arguments for this case is the relatively recent evidence about the formation of galactic and super galactic clusters. It is now abundantly clear - see attached images - that galaxies are not random objects which have just happened to form by chance. They are highly structured objects and they group together into even more complex structures called clusters and super clusters. It is very evident that these clusters and super clusters group together according to a pattern which is usually, if not always, lattice-like filaments that resemble the lattice-like structures found in super-fluid vortex groups.
Because explosions are not normally considered to be constructive in their outcome, it is very difficult to explain these galactic structures using the big bang theory and the elapsed time since the big bang (something like a mere 13 billion years) is not long enough to explain their size and complexity as energy distribution throughout the universe, according to all models, is far to flat to provide the necessary fluctuations to drive the galaxies together in such an organised fashion. Yet the latest evidence shows that these massive structures are found at the most remotest parts of the universe and therefore, according to the big bang theory, must be among the oldest objects; something that is not rationally possible. But, if the universe is a multi-dimensional rotating super-fluid, then the galactic structures are explained very easily for the lattice like-structure they exhibit is exactly what we see in other rotating super-fluids.
We think that as the motion of the super-fluidic universe is frictionless the entropy we observe is actually a local phenomenon or relative to our observation; maybe both. The universe as a whole does not and will not ever change from the state it is in at this moment because, in essence, it is dimensionless. We are of course going to be asked what causes the motion of the universe if not some prime cause such as the big bang; or maybe even God. Our response to this is that Einstein gave the answer a hundred years ago when he wrote E=MC2. This formula means that there is only one constant and that is motion. It doesn’t have a cause; it is the condition of the universe. As everything is energy, according to Einstein and quantum physics, then everything does not occupy dimension and everything is motion whatever that is. All else, and by this we mean space/time, is a result of our own observation.
References:
The formation of vortices and vortex lattices in a super fluid (Bose-Einstein Condensate);
Prof. R.J. Ballagh Dept. Of Physics Otago University New Zealand
......................
Vortex formation in a stirred Bose-Einstein condensate;
K.W. Madison, F.Chevy, W.Wohlleben, J. Dalibard
.........................
Super Galactic lattice structures:
See attached items from Internet astronomical websites and go to Wikipedia or any number of other sites available.
.................................
The potential for a super fluidic universe:
Hakan Egne
Dokuz Eylul University Turkey
Extract from Astronomical Magazine 8/3/2010
The Pisces-Perseus Supercluster
The Pisces-Perseus supercluster is one of the most prominent structures in the local extragalactic sky. We can examine this structure by looking at the two dimensional distributions of galaxies in the region of the supercluster. The top diagram shows the distribution on the plane of the sky of galaxies in a 90 by 30 degree slice
across the supercluster. The main ridge of the supercluster is roughly outlined by straight lines. This is the same feature seen in the Aitoff equal area projection of the nearest 15,000 galaxies. Only galaxies with measured redshifts are shown here.
Note the clumpiness of the galaxies, particularly the continuous structure within the outlined region. Notice also the absence of galaxies in other portions of the map. Some of the empty regions to the extreme left (east) and at the top (north) are partly caused by obscuration within the Milky Way. However, most of the structure seen in this map is real.
The lower diagram shows the distribution in redshift space of all of the galaxies contained within the area outlined in the top one. This representation does not give adequate comparison of nearby and distant structures (see below), but it is clear that the majority of galaxies seen in the enhanced region in the upper plot all lie at approximately the same redshift.
The main ridge of the Pisces-Perseus supercluster can be traced over 90 degrees across the sky. It lies at a mean redshift of about 5500 km/s and is is best described as a linear "filament" with an axial ratio of at least 8:1, inclined by less than 12 degrees to the plane of the sky. The supercluster extends over 45 Mpc in length before it disappears into the Zone of Avoidance on the east.
• This diagram shows the redshift distribution of the same galaxies shown in the middle one, but in this case, the spatial coordinate is shown as a true angle. This representation is called a cone diagram and gives a more accurate comparison between nearby and distant structures.
• Velocity crowding into narrow lanes of width about 250 to 500 km/s shows that most of the structures seen confined on the plane of the sky are also confined in the redshift dimension. They are therefore two-dimensional linear structures. Occasional larger spreads in velocity are seen in the regions of rich clusters, where orbital velocities within the cluster potential are added to the Hubble expansion velocity.
• The relative isolation of the supercluster from the Local Supercluster in the foreground and from other structures at larger distances is emphasized in the cone diagram. The empty "voids" are non-spherical regions of true galaxy underdensity.
|
