|
THE
only publications in scientific journals, achieved in thirteen years of sustained effort, have so far been limited to three articles in Russian conference proceedings. Since no assessor has ever found a flaw in the logic this state of affairs raises puzzling questions. The approach cannot be so outrageous because it is already being used as reference texts. Two books, published in 1996, relied heavily on this author's books (12) and (13). These are the books by Alan Watts's (16) (who coined the name "nuether") and the one by Connelly (17).
I was permitted a 25 minute presentation at the 20th International Conference of the Society for Psychical Research on 1st. September 1996 and was accorded an enthusiastic response from members. But even that body refuses to publish any of the subject matter in their journal, despite its relevance and despite the lack of any satisfactory alternative so far gracing their pages. It is as if the Establishment physicists, who insist that mind is mere brain function, have taken charge to protect their own corner.
I also found, to my great surprise, that a physicist, Dr Bernard Carr, had organised their conference and he supplied information to explain my failure in communication. He said I was well known in cosmology circles: as a MAVERICK!
I thought I was helping!
Let us explore examples of reasoning to find what is wrong. It seems best to begin at the point which first triggered an interest in this subject: an article written by Professor Tryon which appeared in New Scientist on March 8th 1984. Its title was "What made the World".
This suggested that gravitational potential energy was negative and so could balance the positive mass-energy of the universe. Then the whole could have arisen "Ex-Nihilo". Yet this potential energy was measured from infinity merely because this was the convention. Clearly creation was a special case which did not admit of such a choice and the mass-energy would still exist, at infinity, where the potential energy was zero. Effectively the constant of integration had been ignored: the only place where no work against gravity had been done was at the point of creation. Then this potential energy appeared positive: it could not be negative at all. After several journals alerted had rejected this critique without a reason, a correspondence with the writer and physicist and supplied further information about the Big Bang devised by Alan Guth. Suddenly Davies refused even to speak on the telephone, appearing to be totally embarrassed. However, this information combined with a fuller treatment by Novikov (18), concerning the way an "intrinsic negative pressure of the vacuum" is still being used to power the "Big Bang", will now be studied.
The energy density of space e had to be huge to explain nature's forces but, at the same time, it had to be zero, it goes, otherwise space could expand. This was because an energy input
erV is need to increase its volume by amount
rV. Somehow this energy requirement needed cancellation by another process. The only other process available was energy derived from the effect of pressure.
Hence erV needs to be balanced by the mechanical work done by vacuum pressure P: which is; P*(Area*distance) =
PrV. So:
erV + PrV = 0: So P = -e
(1)
An equation for density J from General Relativity is:
Jc2
= e
+ 3P: Using(1): J
= -2 e
c2
(2)
But a force is needed to power the Big Bang and General Relativity says things fall without a force: so substitute in Mewton's equation (left hand side (LHS) below) which does specify a force F:
F = -GJVm :
So: F = 2JeVm
R2
c2R2
(3)
V is the volume of a sphere of space of density J having a radius R. On its surface, the mass m is situated to feel force F. G is the gravitational constant. The negative signs cancel so that a positive force appears: just right to give the explosion for powering the creative Big Bang.
There are no mistakes in the algebra and this is the basis of the Big Bang accepted for decades, so we are justified in accepting the end result, are we not?
Take a more critical look. First the pressure has no conceivable mechanism for its production. It the particles responsible for e travelled at speeds between zero and that of light then, by adapting the kinetic theory of gases, it is readily shown that P = 0 to e/3: not -e!
Next, it is impossible for any pressure to switch a density from positive to negative as (2) demands. This result means the LHS equation id being used outside its range of applicability.
Also the negative pressure of the vacuum assumed would cause implosion: This is simply ignored.
Finally it breaks the rules of logic to substitute from (2) to (3) since General Relativity and Newton's equation stem from incompatible assumptions.
It is not therefore surprising that mathematicians have been stuck so long with their problem of a huge predicted "Cosmological constant" which is entirely false. This problem vanishes as soon as the idea of primaries existing in both positive and negative energy states is accepted because no violent explosion is then postulated to create the universe. Instead, a gentle sustained creation of the iether is predicted. This brings us to consider another difficulty.
The brilliant physicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who worked out intricate aspects of nuclear fusing in the Sun, also proposed his idea of continuous creation. Interstellar gas was continuously being formed by some unknown means and was pushing the galaxies apart. The universe had neither a beginning nor an end and a steady of continuous expansion existed to infinite distance in all directions. New galaxies were continually condensing out from the interstellar gas, due to gravitational attraction, so that the universe would always appear the same at all times.
This was a rival theory to the Big Bang until astronomical observations ruled it out. It could have been eliminated earlier by the application of conceptual logic. A hollow sphere of gas is imagined in which the inner and outer radii are always kept in constant ratio with one another as it steadily grows. Clearly it cannot move at a constant radial speed: it must be continually accelerating. Hence expansion in a steady state is impossible! Instead the galaxies are now predicted to be receding at speeds proportional to their distance from us: so matching the observations initiated by Hubble just as well as the Big Bang. This is treated fully in the new book (15) in which the iether is considered: not the interstellar gas of Hoyle. This shows that, not only is every hollow spherical shell element in a state of accelerating expansion: the density is always increasing at every point until a limiting condition is reached. This limiting condition, to be called the "liquidus state", will eventually arise when the primaries are jammed close together so that creation and annihilation are in exact balance. Unfortunately there can be no filamentous structure here and so neither mind nor matter could exist there. It is the "Black Hole" condition: quite unlike any black hole described by General Relativity. Consequently the universe cannot be infinite but must exist as a huge ever-growing sphere. It had a beginning but may never end.
I believe I found the reason for the present state of Cosmology-physics on return from the Russian Scientific Conference. On the 31st of October 1991 I presented the mathematics of the quantum gravity theory to the Students Physics Society of Cambridge University. They were most enthusiastic and one said that was something they could really understand: it made sense. There was general agreement on this point. I asked if this meant they found their courses difficult to comprehend. The response was universal: none of it made sense, they said, the mathematics cams so thick and fast they just had to accept it without having time to absorb or criticise the material.
If real progress is to be ensured in physics, then the mathematicians need to encourage the cross-fertilisation between disciplines. Nobody can learn everything and if people train predominantly in mathematics they need engineers, like me, who have learned basic principles at the additional level of "conceptual logic". In mathematics the physicists are brilliant, but at least we could stop them tripping over the simple things!
There is another serious consideration. It cannot be long before funding bodies become aware of the situation. They could decide public funding is not being used in an effective way!
|
