Does my use of Carmeli’s cosmology provide a valid solution to the starlight-travel-time problem?

This question surfaces occasionally. I am sent queries sometimes, especially when a creation speaker runs into someone with a background in physics and/or that creationist is challenged as to the plausibility of the model I presented in my book, Starlight Time and the New Physics.  STNP cover

In the book I developed an idea of a cosmological model based on Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Relativity theory. I used Carmeli’s cosmology to create a biblical creationist model for the origin of the Universe, with a timeline that includes the 6 days of Genesis creation beginning about 6000 years ago. I took parts of Carmeli’s big bang cosmology and added biblically based hypotheses (and speculations) to make it conform to Scripture.

The main text of the book outlines a sketch of how history the Universe would have unfolded if the cosmology and resulting cosmogony were a true for our Universe. The theme is that new physics is needed. The appendices 1-5 of the book are there to show the reader that the underlying theory (Carmeli’s theory) can explain what we observe in the Universe, where new physics was added, and thus what we build on that should also be valid. Appendix 6 is where I theorised about a Creation scenario. That is totally my own work, even though I extrapolated from Carmeli.

That means it is no longer Carmeli’s cosmology but a sort of hybrid cosmology. Carmeli only constructed a 4 dimensional (4D) space-velocity model for the Universe. He never found a full 5D model for the whole Universe, which might be used to construct a history close to the Creation epoch. I theorised on a new model–call it the Hartnett-Carmeli model if you like–which is 5D. I added the time dimension to Carmeli’s space and velocity dimensions, to create a linearised 5 dimensional model, something like an extension of special relativity but in 5 dimensions. That is shown in appendix 6. I then used that, making additional assumptions, to explore the idea of rapid time-dilation during Creation. The additional assumptions involved direct intervention by the Creator as might be expected during Creation. If the resulting scenario is a description of the true history of the Universe then that also provides a solution to the starlight-travel-time problem.

I do not claim it is the answer but if God did something like I describe it could provide us with an understanding of it. It is a possible solution and I admit there are several potential areas where the solution may be found. Adding new physics may be a simple way to avoid many fudge factors in cosmology but it does mean adding a new dimension that is very hard to even conceptualise. Continue reading

Time As a Geometric Property of Space

This is the title of a new paper just published in the journal Frontiers in Physics.1 fipThere we explore the notion that time results from properties of space itself. This comes about when one properly use the higher dimensional formalism afforded by Clifford’s geometric algebra.2

Abstract: The proper description of time remains a key unsolved problem in science. Newton conceived of time as absolute and universal which “flows equably without relation to anything external.” In the nineteenth century, the four-dimensional algebraic structure of the quaternions developed by Hamilton, inspired him to suggest that he could provide a unified representation of space and time. With the publishing of Einstein’s theory of special relativity these ideas then lead to the generally accepted Minkowski spacetime formulation of 1908. Minkowski, though, rejected the formalism of quaternions suggested by Hamilton and adopted an approach using four-vectors. The Minkowski framework is indeed found to provide a versatile formalism for describing the relationship between space and time in accordance with Einstein’s relativistic principles, but nevertheless fails to provide more fundamental clockinsights into the nature of time itself. In order to answer this question we begin by exploring the geometric properties of three-dimensional space that we model using Clifford geometric algebra, which is found to contain sufficient complexity to provide a natural description of spacetime. This description using Clifford algebra is found to provide a natural alternative to the Minkowski formulation as well as providing new insights into the nature of time. Our main result is that time is the scalar component of a Clifford space and can be viewed as an intrinsic geometric property of three-dimensional space without the need for the specific addition of a fourth dimension. (emphases added)

This work leads to the idea that time can be represented by both a scalar irreversible component and a vector reversible component. We are very familiar with the forward arrow of time seen in irreversible non-directional processes like entropy increase but also there are spin-like processes where time is reversible. We show this can be derived from a property of space when viewed in a higher dimensional world than normally considered. For details please read the paper.

Why is this article posted here? The paper shines a light on a different way of understanding time. Since time is an important issue in biblical creation studies it could be that some research along this line might lead to a better cosmogony for our understanding of the Universe. This may be a starting point. I would encourage those who might be interested to explore the possibilities. Afterall space3 is the result of creation of the material content of the Universe. It is intriging to think that time is a cocomitant property of space.

References

  1. James M. Chappell, John G. Hartnett, Nicolangelo Iannella, Azhar Iqbal and Derek Abbott, Time As a Geometric Property of Space, Front. Phys., 17 November 2016 | http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2016.00044
  2. J.G. Hartnett, Is mathematics intrinsic to the Universe?, May 11, 2015.
  3. J.G. Hartnett, Expansion of space — A dark science, November 13, 2014.

Additional Reading

Quantum theory to eliminate the beginning of the Universe

Genesis begins with “In the beginning God …”. But those who deny the creation of the Universe by God, the self-existent Creator, as described in Genesis–the book of beginnings–the first book of the Bible, would very much like to eliminate the beginning itself.

singularity

Mathematical illustration of a fictional singularity

I have reported before on various attempts to eliminate the beginning, even a big bang beginning in a singularity.1,2 Those who do attempt such a thing, think if they can find a mathematical description by way of some quantum gravity theory then it must also follow that the Creator is not needed and that that somehow eliminates Him.  As an example of this the following was stated in 2015 on the Phys.org news site in relation to some theoretical research, which I have previously reported1 on, but it is worth reiterating. It was stated that

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.3 (emphases added)

The desire is there for an eternal universe because it eliminates the Creator. What is interesting in this case is that it also intends to eliminate the need for dark energy and dark matter, which I have long said are fudge factors. There is no laboratory evidence for their existence; they are only invoked in cosmology and astrophysics because the standard model just does not describe what we observe without them. This is an admission that that is the case.

The other big big bang problem is the singularity itself. No one has a clue about the physics that should have operated if the fictional singularity was once reality. The mathematical descriptions used in modern cosmology—developed from Einstein’s general relativity—just don’t work when time and space no longer exist as is believed to be the case in the alleged singularity.4 Continue reading

Why should baryons define where the dark matter is? Another dark matter problem

A research paper1 recently accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters titled “The radial acceleration relation in rotationally supported galaxies”2 highlights a discovery that is bad news for dark matter. It certainly does not strengthen the case for halo dark matter around spiral galaxies.

The research team, McGaugh et al, took data for 153 spiral disk galaxies from the Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves (SPARC) database that represents spiral galaxies of all types and morphologies, from very bright to very low surface brightness disks. It included representative spiral galaxies that would be assumed to contain a very high fraction of dark matter at very low orbital accelerations to those with very little dark matter at high orbital accelerations. These galaxies are all assumed to be rotationally supported, which means their disks are assumed to be gravitationally bound by the included matter inside any radial distance (R) from the centre of the galaxy. The speeds of the stars and gases (V) as a function of their measured radial distance (R) determines what is known as a rotation curve V(R). See Fig. 1.

In this paper the observed acceleration, gobs, at each radial distance R from the centre of the chosen galaxies, was calculated from the measured values of V(R) and R for each galaxy, totalling 2693 data points over the 153 galaxies. Also using infrared data the mass density was accurately measured at these same radial points, which permitted, via the Poisson equation, a direct calculation of the expected acceleration, gbar, due to the baryonic matter (protons and neutrons, i.e. normal matter) content within the same galaxies. No free fit parameters were used in these estimations, except a single fixed Mass-to-Light ratio of 0.5 was used across all galaxies.

fig2

Figure 1: Examples of mass models and rotation curves for individual galaxies. The points with error bars in the upper panels are the observed rotation curves V (R). The errors represent both random errors and systematic uncertainty in the circular velocity due to asymmetry in the velocity field. Each baryonic component is represented: dotted lines for the gas, dashed lines for the stellar disk, and dash-dotted lines for the bulge, when present. The sum of these components is the baryonic mass model (solid line). The lower panels illustrate the run of gbar and gobs for each galaxy, with the dashed line being the line of unity. Note that higher accelerations occur at smaller radii. From left to right each line is replotted in gray to illustrate how progressively fainter galaxies probe progressively lower regimes of acceleration.

Assuming standard Newtonian (or Keplerian) physics the acceleration due to the baryonic matter, gbar, is all we should need to correctly calculate the rotation curve of any galaxy. See Fig. 1 (which reproduces their Fig. 2). Some representative rotation curves are shown by the upper-most black circles with error bars. Quite obviously the solid blue lines—the expect rotation velocities due to the observed baryonic matter—do not follow the observed rotation curves, but fall well below, in most galaxies. This is the reason halo dark matter is invoked. See Fig. 2. Continue reading

Now the expansion of the universe is not accelerating

In 2011 the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, as part of two separate teams which published their results around 1998 that they claimed showed that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Also they claimed the existence of some sort of mysterious ‘dark energy’ that was driving the expansion at a faster and faster rate.

Hubble image of supernova remnant N 49 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Credit: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Hubble image of supernova remnant N 49 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Credit: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

The interpretation of the 1998 data depended heavily on the big bang cosmological theory they applied and the assumption that it was the correct theory to describe the structure and time evolution of the Universe. It also depended heavily on the assumption that the type Ia supernova explosions that they used are reliable standard “light bulbs”, i.e. that those stellar explosions all were accurately chosen to have the same characteristic intrinsic absolute brightness.1 The latter, however, we now know is not the case.2

It has been shown that the stellar masses of the stars that result in the type Ia class of supernova are not so well-defined that they all fall within a narrow range as to give a clear standard in terms of the intrinsic brightness of the resulting explosions and hence the type Ia are not a uniform reference. Also as I have previously indicated circular reasoning was employed in the choice of the candidate supernova to be considered.2,3 The cosmology under test was used to choose the candidate Ia supernovae and then those chosen were used to test the same cosmology.

A new study, published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, on a data set ten times larger than the original studies used (5 years ago) has been carried out.4

Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion. (emphasis added)

Continue reading