CHAPTER 6

COSMIC CYCLE

6.1 Red Shifted Blues

In 1912, while working at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, Astronomer Vesto Marvin Slipher (1875-1969) made a profound observation. He noticed that the absorption lines for a particular element within the spectrum of light received from distant Galaxies shifted towards the red end of the spectrum therefore appearing to have been imbedded in a lower frequency than it would otherwise have. He called this phenomenon “Red Shift”. After arriving at Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, California in 1919, Astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble (1889-1953) studied the work of Slipher and concluded that the red shift is a result of Doppler Effect in propagation of electromagnetic radiation similar to that of acoustic waves travelling in the air when the source of acoustic waves is moving away from an observer. As a result, he further asserted that the Galaxies must be moving away from our position of observation, faster if the distance is greater. This in turn, provided the basis for the current Theory of Big Bang, initially proposed by Georges Henri Eduard Lemaître (1894-1966) in 1927 which stipulated that the Universe is expanding in all directions and the speed of this expansion is greater if the Galaxies are farther away. Furthermore, this expansion must have a beginning at which point the Universe was condensed in a finite small super dense point, a point smaller than the point of a needle.

6.2 Seismic Acoustic Waves

An earthquake is a source of seismic energy which initiates propagation of seismic acoustic waves in all directions within our planet since the Earth acts like an elastic medium for this propagation. However, seismograms, the records of these seismic waves at observation points at different distances from a given seismic source, clearly show that these waves are subject to attenuation which is, by definition, a decrease in their energy levels, represented by their frequency and amplitude spectra, primarily as a function of the distance travelled. Attenuation is valid for all types of energy propagation including electromagnetic radiation since it is primarily an inverse function of distance travelled and can be expressed by 1/r² where r donates the distance. It is clear from this line of reasoning that attenuation is also behind the red shift observed by Slipher within the spectrum of light received from distance Galaxies and the greater the distance, greater the red shift. At this point it is possible to assert that red shift is just a manifestation of attenuation of electromagnetic radiation by distance. If this line of reasoning of ours is correct, then Galaxies in the Universe are not flying apart, plunging away from our point of observation in an ever expanding Universe and gaining speed in doing so. The question then becomes what kind of force that exists in the Universe which propels this acceleration of expansion if indeed the Universe is expanding at such an increasingly alarming acceleration?

The amount of this presumed energy, often called Dark Energy, needed for the Universe to accelerate as it expands had to be either contained in an infinitely small dense point which gave birth to Big Bang or existed in the Universe prior to the Big Bang.  If the energy powering the acceleration was contained in the infinitely small point which gave birth to the Big Bang, then energy decreases as an inverse function of the distance covered by the expansion therefore it can’t sustain an ever increasing acceleration. If the energy powering the expansion of the Universe was already existed before the Big Bang happened, then the Big Band was not the beginning of the Universe.

There have been attempts to explain the existence of such a cosmic force but without any reasonable success. Furthermore, if the Universe has started as a very dense finite small point, what existed in the Universe before that which resulted in this dense small point? This line of reasoning leaves me no choice but to conclude that the Big Bang Theory is not fully proven to be valid within the current realm of our scientific knowledge.

6.3 Cosmic Cycle

If the Universe is not expanding as stipulated by the Big Bang Theory, do we have a static Universe as has been proposed in the past or are there other plausible explanations? We know that there are Black Holes in the Universe and they gather mass to become either Galaxies or Supernovas. These cosmic bodies are stages where mass turns into energy either by catastrophic events or cosmic process. This newly generated energy then forms galaxies, nebulae, stars and other cosmic wonders until they deplete their energy and become new formations of mass, which in turn become black holes starting a new cycle in the cosmic evolution. It is clear from this line of reasoning that our Universe is constantly changing between a state of energy and a state of mass and this process is an inherent characteristic of our universe. Based on this, it is plausible to assert that our Universe is both expanding and contracting depending on the nature and location of cosmic activity it is subjected to. But, if that is the case how do we find out how old is our Universe?

6.4 The Age of Universe

Scientists have determined that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old by obtaining precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation which has been estimated to be about 3 degrees above the absolute zero with minor fluctuations in different directions. However, distribution of mass and energy in Universe is hardly uniform. Efforts to map Universe show that the known structure of the Universe is highly random in nature and that is a challenge.

On the other hand, if we could have a firm grip on the size of the Universe, we could have that distance divided by, say, the speed of light, assuming that the Universe was expanding at that constant speed. If that is the case, then we could have reached a number expressing the age of Universe. But there are problems. How do we know that the Universe expanded at the speed of light? What if it is expanding with an ever increasing acceleration? Hubble calculated the speed of receding galaxies by using a ratio of red shifts and called those apparent velocities. Are apparent velocities calculated from different red shifts good enough to be used in our calculations if they are significantly different at various distances from our observation point?

Here we will try another approach to estimate the age of Universe since in this book I have disagreed with the Theory of Big Bang. Going back to our Cosmic Cycle, if the Universe has started as a single or multiple pairs of pure energy in form of a positive and negative energy charges in the cosmos, then our Universe was 100% energy and 0% mass at birth. We could say that our Universe is 0% old. If we can estimate the amount of mass and energy that exist in the Universe today and calculate a ratio, then we can say our Universe is say, 80% old, meaning that in our Universe, we have 80% matter and 20% energy. Of course, we must remember to factor in Einstein’s (Albert Einstein; 1879-1955) constant, which is the ratio of conversion between energy and mass expressed as c² in E=mc², which is the second power of speed of light. So will our Universe be considered dead if it is 100% mass and 0% energy? But this creates an interesting dilemma. We know that in our Universe, mass and energy is constantly converted between the two, mass to energy as well as energy to mass, and the ratio in between the two is constantly changing. Is it possible to say that our Universe can be 80% old today in some parts of it but only 50% old in some distance future? Is the age of Universe uniform at every point in Cosmos? What if it is not? How that can change our perceptions, if one day we can have the means to travel from a part of Universe that is 90% old to a part that is only 50% old? I will leave these questions for you to ponder.

6.5 Conclusions

The picture that emerges from our line of reasoning is different than the generally accepted principles of our current scientific realm. What we have proposed here is a Universe that started out as a sea of 100% energy in a three dimensional space and is continuously changing between a state of mass and a state of energy. Will it end when it becomes 100% dark matter although cosmic cycle we have proposed contradicts that line of reasoning?

In this book, we have for the first time ever proposed a dynamic atomic model that can be manufactured in the Universe with great ease and can be the building block of all forms of mass, energy and life in Cosmos. We have suggested a Cosmic Cycle in which matter and energy are continuously in transition between the two and a Universe both expanding in some parts and contracting in some others. We have even attempted to find out the age of our Universe, which I believe is extremely important in understanding our past and future as Cosmic Travellers in the words of Carl Sagan. We asserted that life is all frequency and amplitude and has its own unique spectra which are unique to all life forms. We have challenged The Big Bang and tried to clarify our misperceptions about Red Shift as defined by Edwin Hubble. We also have for the first time tried to understand magnetism and offered a plausible suggestion for the existence of The Unified Field Theory. These are significant deviations from the current realm of scientific knowledge and they invite further investigations.

But we must pause here now to take a break since I believe we have talked enough about my ideas, my perceptions, my theories and my conjectures. It is your turn now.

 

Fog: 6-1. Absorption lines from two celestial objects. The object whose spectrum is at the bottom is said to be farther away from the one whose spectrum is at the top. Source; Wikimedia Commons. Copied under Free Content and Public Domain License.

 

Fig: 6-3.Simulated comparison of the Sun’s absorption lines with absorption lines from a distant supercluster of galaxies. Image courtesy of Prof. Dr. Harold T. Stokes, Brigham Young University. 

APPENDIX 1

GRAVITY WAVES

Gravity is said to be a force of attraction between two masses of any size. This force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them as asserted by Sir Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727). It is the reason why objects have weight and why they do fall back to the Earth. It is also the reason why planets of our Solar System orbit our Sun. Without the force of gravity, the Universe will be a much different affair.

More precisely, however, gravity is a three dimensional potential field surrounding a mass of any size. Naturally, greater the mass, greater the magnitude of the potential field as expected. However, having a mass alone is not enough to create a gravity wave. In order to create a gravity wave, a mass must have motion.

Let’s for a moment consider a large planet orbiting a massive stationary star with a significant gravity pull. Let us also assume that we are within a distance of observation, in cosmic scale, from the two. The gravity pull we will feel will be the summation of the gravity pulls of the planet and the star together as a binary system. Since the star is stationary in reference to our point of observation, its gravity pull will appear unchanged during our observation. However, as the planet in question moves around the star in its orbit, the combined gravity pull we will feel and measure will change as a function of the planet’s motion. When the planet is directly in between us and the massive star, we will feel the greatest gravity pull of the binary system because the force of gravity of the planet is the greatest since it is at its closest point to us. When the planet moves to the other side of the star, it is at its farthest point from us therefore its gravity pull is the weakest. So the combined gravity pull of the two is now smaller. If we continuously plot our measurements of the combined gravity pull of this binary system at our station of observation as a function of the planet’s move around the star over a period of time, we will end up plotting a gravity wave.

The Universe is full of gravity waves because it is full of billions of massive celestial objects moving around in a cosmic dance. Yet gravity waves are the most difficult to detect because of immense cosmic distances that can be best measured in light years. Since these great distances reduce the effects of gravity by the inverse square of distance, gravity waves quickly become infinitesimal in magnitude in the great vastness of the Universe which should explain why they are so difficult to detect.

But what happens if suddenly a large celestial object converts its mass into energy as in a supernova explosion? Anytime a celestial object with mass ceases to exist, its three dimensional gravity potential also ceases to exist since gravity is an attribute of mass and nothing else.

APPENDIX 2

OLBERS’ PARADOX

One of the questions that preoccupied astronomers and the philosophers in the 16^th century was about the night sky. They had wondered why the sky was black at night yet stars were bright and could be easily seen on a clear night. With so many bright stars dotted the sky above, why, they have enquired, they don’t see a sky that is full of light once the Sun goes down. This was an apparent contradiction with their belief in an essentially infinite and ageless Universe. German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840) was one of those who also considered this apparent paradox.  Of course, present day astronomers believe that the Universe has an age, 13.5 billion years at the last count and perhaps subject to change in the future, as well as it might not be limitless at all. So some astronomers are hard at work trying to unearth the answers to this seemingly contradictory observation. One of their conclusions so far was based on the present day interpretation of red shifted absorption lines which implied that different amounts of red shift can cause the visible light to become invisible despite the fact that we have optically imaged galaxies that are almost 13 billion light years away.

Our observations tell us that our Universe is full of electromagnetic radiation. As a result we know that our planet is constantly bombarded with Gamma Rays, X-rays, Microwaves and Radio waves of cosmic origin as well as visible light. We also know that all energy propagation in space is subject to attenuation meaning Gamma Rays attenuate as a function of propagation to become X rays, X-Rays to become visible light, visible light to become Micro Waves and Micro Waves to become Radio Waves. Hence, we only receive radio waves from the most distant objects in the Universe. Yet our eyes and brain can only detect, process and image part of the electromagnetic spectrum which falls within the frequency range of visible light meaning that a very large volume of the Universe is not visible to our most sensitive optical observation tools. There is a Universe far beyond our planet that we can not see yet we know it is there since it can be observed with radio telescopes. If our eyes were able to detect and see the entire frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum, our night sky will be brighter than we can possibly imagine and perhaps more brighter than we would ever want it to be.

APPENDIX 3

ORGANIC MOLECULES

For a very long time, scientists have grappled with a fundamental question without much success. How do organic molecules, building blocks of life, form from atoms of known elements which are considered to be inorganic by definition?

In Chapter 5, we have proposed a model of how atoms are formed at the contact points of negative and positive energy freely floating in space. We also identified nebulae as factories of atoms. But how did organic molecules form from these newly hatched atoms in order to create building blocks of life?

Contact points of negative and positive energy are zones of extreme heat and as a result, atoms created in these environments are mostly energy and very little mass at the early stages of their existence. Since energy outside the shell of these atoms are the source of their repulsive force according to our atomic model, these atoms are driven away from contact points of negative and positive energy as well as from each other towards zones of lower energy and finally into the intergalactic space. As the cooling of these atoms takes hold, our atoms are now less energy and more mass and as such they have lesser amount of repulsive forces while gaining more of the attractive force of microgravity. It is this weak force of microgravity that allows atoms of all kinds to combine in random processes to form initial simple molecules. These initial simple molecules continue to interact with each other through random iterative processes to eventually become more complex organic molecules and building blocks of life.

Similarly atoms present in our home planet after its fiery birth might have gone through a similar process of cooling to allow formation of Earth bound organic molecules. If this line of reasoning of ours is indeed plausible, our Universe must be brimming with life as new organic molecules are being formed every second in its great vastness.

But is there any supporting evidence for this line of reasoning that molecules form within certain temperature windows during a cooling period? We all know that certain chemical reactions happen at room temperature but some others require certain degree of heating. This means that temperature levels play a necessary role in all chemical reactions since atoms can combine to form molecules if their attractive forces are greater than their repulsive forces. Accordingly the balance between repulsive and attractive forces of our atomic model is crucial in all chemical reactions since temperature is the only factor that controls that critical balance between atoms of all elements.