dennislmay

Compartmentalizing the successes of individual theories should not insulate them from criticism when application in a composite concept such as the “Big Bang Theory” does not produce good results.

General Relativity is unable to correctly predict the velocity profiles of galaxies. The solution was to create Dark Matter to fix theory to observation. Now comes the observation that galaxies that look alike have the same velocity profiles and are thus required to have identical Dark Matter distributions:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts

This kind of required uniformity cannot be justified.

If General Relativity on the galactic scale is in doubt the entire Big Bang physics is in doubt. A failure of General Relativity would seem to bring with it the possibility of a failure in Special Relativity – a non-linear effect which in turn brings up the question of LET and non-linear QM.

"You are a refreshing difference. Little did I dream that I would corresponding with an aetherist. That is almost as surprising as meeting up with a flat-earther or a hollow-earther in this day and age."

I’m as refreshing as a flat-earther who lives in the hollow-earth.

“In the mean time quantum electrodynamics which is based on Einstein's special theory of relativity (in part) still produces dazzling correct predictions.”

Still based on SR and QM that cannot be mathematically distinguished from LET or other QM models in their predictions.

“And particle accelerators operate every day as advertised again and again corroborating Einstein's theory.”

Again:

http://en.wikipedia....tz_ether_theory

"Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

“Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

"In 1904 J. J. Thomson[36] considered a Le Sage-type model in which the primary ultramundane flux consisted of a hypothetical form of radiation much more penetrating even than x-rays. He argued that Maxwell's heat problem might be avoided by assuming that the absorbed energy is not be converted into heat, but re-radiated in a still more penetrating form."

The thermodynamics of re-radiating models is the work that was never done - hence the entire approach was abandoned based on doing half the minimum required research.

There is no experiment proof that SR has any superior claim to the LET. Certain ether models are known to have contained errors – there is no experimental evidence to exclude all ether theories and very little theoretical work has been done beyond that known to have been incomplete and misleading.

As soon as any non-linear effect of any kind is experimentally proved the "Standard Model of Particles of Fields" will not be able to adapt – neither will Special Relativity. The question of interpretation and adaptability will then become very important. The non-linear deBB approach is already a known approach to this problem and Special Relativity will need to be replaced with something like Lorentzian ether theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

My entire alternative approach to physics and cosmology is to use the assumption of non-linear QM to explain numerous observations. Definitive experimental proof of a non-linear QM effect has yet to be found though I believe cosmology gives clear indications that such effects exist.

I have done some minor experimentation to provide such proof but the equipment required to go much further is financially on the order of buying a nice house plus having the right kind of lab infrastructure to put it in. As such it is a slow process.

There is no falsification at this point - there is more than one approach to get the same results and more than one interpretation. Dirac supported the vector approach which was later shown to produce the same predictions as many other mathematical approaches - some of which have very different interpretations.

Some believe the success of the “Standard Model of Particles and Fields” excludes alternative interpretations – Bell showed is not true at all. Its success is also success for all mathematically equivalent theories regardless of interpretation.

The interpretations are fundamental to understanding, using and being able to expand quantum mechanics. An incorrect view of hidden variables generated by John von Neumann was propagated as fact from 1932 until disproven by J.S. Bell in 1964. This did not end the issue as the results of the mistake of von Neumann are erroneously reported as fact to this day. J.S. Bell discussed the issue of the result of his work being misinterpreted and misrepresented in his book “Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics”. Different interpretations take you along very different mathematically equivalent paths – though some methods are easier to apply than others and some interpretations have been worked on more than others building a larger mathematical tool-chest. The wave formulation, the matrix mechanics formulation, the vector formulation, the Bohmian, approach and some others all produce the same results and are explained by Bell. Some erroneously claim their interpretation [and supporting math] is the only one producing the correct results – they are wrong and have been known to be wrong since 1964.

My alternative cosmology is a form of steady-state cosmology. It is a different model than Hoyle's and does not suffer the same problems. The failure of one model does not imply a blanket failure of all theories with some features in common.

Quantum mechanics is not being thrown out - deBB QM is a different interpretation producing the same results as conventional QM. My non-linear offshoot of deBB QM does have some different predictions in some areas as all non-linear QM must. There are many competing models for QM producing accurate results within certain ranges of assumptions and measurements. Questioning the foundations of QM is not an all or nothing proposition.

It is my view that the theory of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok suffers from most of the same problems as the Big Bang Theory – thus I find it of no interest.

Some further history of my work:

My undergraduate thesis was an early version of a portion of this work and I enjoyed support in that effort. I worked on my masters thesis and some PhD work in the same area of research but did not enjoy support in that effort.

I sought the advice from “Foundations of Physics”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics

in that effort and they directed me to J.P. Vigier for advice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Vigier

Vigier was there at the beginning of deBB mechanics and directed me to people doing similar work in computer modeling. This was 1990-1991 - prior to the work of Gregory S. Duane in 2001 which I assumed correct but had no proof of at the time. So the foundation of my work sat in limbo from 1990-2001. Sometime after the work of Duane I once again contacted “Foundations of Physics” in regard to correcting a series of papers containing an obvious thermodynamic error which I dealt with as a minor side effect in my work from 1990. I found that moneyed interests [DOE funding to the University of California – San Diego] outweighs basic physics considerations and I fought them for two years without being allowed to publish my point of view until they had someone publish a correction - in convoluted form - disguising the nature of the obvious error in what they had done. By this time I was very disgusted with “Foundations of Physics” and became even more so after Gerard 't Hooft became the editor-in-chief in 2007. In the time frame of 1990-1991 I attempted to publish my early work in most all the physics journals accepting work in alternative QM and found none as welcoming as “Foundations of Physics”. I self published an early version of the work at that time.

After the fiasco of attempting to deal with “Foundations of Physics” I started the yahoo group:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/

to discuss my work and get valuable input from others with similar interests in alternative physics and cosmology. I have self published two editions [still working on 3rd] outlining my work. I have free copies of the 2nd edition available for those interested – just email me at dennislmay@yahoo.com with your address and I will send you a copy. The experience of 2 years of arguing on two occasions to get less than 1% of my work understood in a physics journal has left me working as a one man band except for the online support and help I have received over the years. I have contacted a half dozen or so prominent researchers about my CMBR work with no response. Over the years I have received support from a dozen or so university physics professors around the world but entire topic of deBB QM and non-linear QM generally has been languishing in a dying exponential manner. So I remain the sole advocate for all intents and purposes.

I have read of their work and it seems to contain most of the same problems as the Big Bang Theory.

Since 2005 I have been discussing some of my work on alternative physics and alternative cosmology in various forums – primarily on a yahoo discussion group in addition to self-published book form. The work extends from 1990 to the present.

It is my opinion that there are many misconceptions as to the current state of evidence supporting Big Bang Cosmology. It is my contention that every major tenant of the Big Bang approach may be better explained using an alternative approach that is internally consistent and consistent with observation.

The three major tenants of the Big Bang Theory are:

The observed Hubble red-shift is the result of the expansion of space as modeled using General Relativity.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation [CMBR] is the radiation left over from a time when the universe was in black-body thermal contact prior to the continued expansion of the universe.

The ratio of light elements found the universe is due to the conditions found during the early portion of Big Bang expansion.

My alternative explanation for each of these primary points originates in the foundations of a particular non-linear branch of de Broglie-Bohm [deBB] quantum mechanics incorporating the work of Gregory S. Duane on the foundations of such a quantum mechanics.

A quick summary of the alternative explanation for each of the three major tenants:

The observed Hubble red-shift is the result of a slow universal increase in the speed of passage of time. Space is not expanding. This is a by-product of the non-linear model of quantum mechanics.

Example of observational support – the apparent geometrical size/brightness of galaxies does not match their Big Bang derived distance – rather a distance you would expect if the universe is not expanding.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation [CMBR] is the black-body radiation resulting from non-linear QM thermal contact in the present nearby universe.

Example of observational support – the CMBR does not having lensing or shadowing characteristics consistent with a source from near the beginning of a Big Bang expansion. In fact the CMBR shadows fills in behind galaxies indicating continual production in nearby space.

The ratio of light elements found the universe is due to the continual recycling and regeneration of matter in a very old universe using non-linear QM.

Example of observational support – though supporters claim the ratio of elements support the Big Bang model there are numerous observations contradicting this assertion. The most glaring example is the failure to find first generation red-dwarf stars which according to all theory should be abundant and only beginning their long existence in the age available to the Big Bang theory. Red-dwarf stars are the most abundant type indicating a first order failure in prediction.

This is just a flavor and I hope to have time to expand during further discussion.

Hello,

I am Dennis May - I have been on some 5-6 Objectivist oriented discussion groups starting in Jan 2000.

Just skimming about I see more than a half dozen familiar names. George H. Smith thought I might be

interested in contributing thought on alternative physics since that is my lifelong passion and we

were discussing it elsewhere. Alternatives to Big Bang cosmology is where I would like to start so

I will look around to see where to discuss that topic. See you in the posts.