|
The
Depiction of a Pause
in
Exponential Decelerating Growth
at a Very
Early Time
Back to part 2
Back to part 1B (1A continued)
Back to
part 1A: Graphical Model of the Universe (begin)
Presented below is one
final figure. Therein, the plot represents the result of taking the first
derivative of the exponential expansion equation that shows a fall-off or
deceleration in the velocity of expansion in the modern epoch. But, this plot
looks at a short interval of time very near the beginning and it is seen that
the speed or velocity of expansion drops from an exceedingly high level and runs
through a minimum that approaches zero. It remains far below the speed of light
and this behavior lasts for several orders of magnitude of time.
This should be important
because this kind of exponential curve shows no initial induction period.
According to the Guth scenario, a latency period is thought to be essential to
serve the purpose of providing an early time for rapid equilibration of the
universe resulting in the isotropic thermal homogeneity that we see now in the
CMB.
The case of the model
wherein the velocity of expansion accelerates in the modern era does not display
this minimum. So, if the model itself is credible, this is another reason to
favor the deceleration scenario if one requires a time in the early history of
the universe when equilibration could occur
Nonetheless, in order to favor the deceleration scenario, one would still need
to explain the distant supernova 1a results. These have been interpreted as
indicating that the universe may be undergoing accelerating expansion in the
present epoch7,8. Actually, the real value of these results is to
show that previous brightness measurements have not been affected by intervening
“grey dust” nor even by intergalactic “plasma”.
Perhaps the interpretation
of results that implies acceleration is a sort of optical illusion. It may stem
from the possibility that when the universe is observed at such early times, it
is observed as a more and more purely relativistic object deeper inside a far
more intense gravitational field than has been thought, because the universe may
be far larger and more massive than is supposed. See the trace of equation 1 for
an indication of how strongly gravity may modulate time, if this model makes any
sense.
Plus, a more positive
minimal residue of curvature of the space-time continuum than we think might
exist may be sufficient to produce an additional distortion of our measurements
when initial conditions occur much closer to t = 0. Perhaps our gross difference
in perspective, and our failure to compensate completely for a possible excess
distortion due to our perspective, results in what naively looks as if the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
In other words, acceleration
may be an artifact. If insufficient effort was made to compensate for the fact
that light must have been climbing out of a much stronger gravitational field
and for the possibility of extra time dilation in such a field, then artifacts
may still persist. Then, with a “derated” redshift, one that is reduced by
sufficient compensation for more severe gravitational effects, the cosmological
distance covered per unit net redshift will increase with distance. Then, there
will tend to be no disparity between redshift distances and those determined by
brightness measurements. Thus, acceleration will disappear along with dark
energy.
Besides, the fundamental
dynamics of some aspects of black hole behavior are still largely unknown. The
primordial black-hole, the inflaton particle, was supposed to have been a point
particle with mass/energy enough, in its highly excited state, to account for
all the matter and energy we see today and then some. Its infinitely dense state
yielded an infinitely strong gravitational field at this point. But, it may have
been blurred by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle should a statistical
ensemble of Us like ours have been observed.
An infinitely strong gravitational field is
different from any that Isaac Newton ever imagined. The shape or profile of
this field would have been hyperbolic, not parabolic. It should have taken
some time for the whole primordial black-hole to have unfolded, deconvoluted or
evaporated down to the last quark and supersymmetric superstring. It may still
be unfolding. So, the infinitely deep, gravitational field potential energy may
well have still existed at the time of the emission of the CMBR and the emission
of light from the deep space SNe 1a that show a need to use a larger H0
to calculate their distances. Comparing a hyperbola to a parabola, one sees that
the hyperbolic gravitational field gives a stronger force and higher
acceleration to entities embedded in it if the time and distance from the center
is not too small. But this is an unnecessary hypothesis if one accepts that H0
is not constant and has been decreasing in linear regression since t = 0.George Ellis has suggested
that the bulk of the volume of our parcel of the universe as defined by the
radius of our light horizon is, by chance, less dense than average. That is, the
assumption of the Copernican or Cosmological Principle of homogeneity and
isotropism may be somewhat inaccurate. Then our redshift observations may be
slightly skewed by the climb up the gravitational well that light must make.
Then, this alone could mean that dark energy has been erroneously inferred9.
Some say
that it is unlikely that observers should be so well positioned near the center
of a huge cosmic void that the Ellis phenomenon could occur. But, there are
dozens of dimensions in which they may or may not be positioned near the center.
Is it not quite possible that they might be so positioned in at least one of
them?
Furthermore, to repeat, it
may be wrong to assume that an increased rate of expansion denoted by faster
than expected recession rates for very distant, very old 1a supernovae back when
time was nearer t = 0 means that the recession rate must be accelerating in the
present. This is not logical, not even if relativity is invoked.
FIGURE 5
A PAUSE
IN THE VELOCITY OF EXPANSION
DEPICTION OF THE DERIVATIVE OF THE EXPONENTIAL
EXPANSION DECELERATING EXEMPLAR AT A VERY EARLY TIME
In this plot read “radius” to mean expansion
“velocity”
because all these plots are on the same scale.
One would expect that an
increased corrected value for H0 obtained for very distant and
therefore very old objects should mean that a very much lower “more modern”
value for H0 indicates that the expansion rate is decelerating.
There cannot simultaneously
be more than one effective value for H0 for the present instant
applying to nearby objects, an indirectly inferred one that purports to indicate
acceleration in the present era, and a much lower value for H0 for
now, at t = 1. The latter is obtained by simple short extrapolation from direct
observations.
If there is no dark energy,
the apparent flatness of the universe must still be explained in the absence of
enough matter and energy in the matter/energy inventory to produce a nearly flat
inference from analysis of the cosmic microwave background. There may be a small
enough residual positive curvature of space to account for a much larger
universe than we can see, limited as we are by the light horizon. Indeed, if the
universe is exactly flat, the true meaning of such flatness may well be that it
is infinite or certainly large enough to account for the “missing mass”. Also, a
convenient infinity could help account for the infinite depth of the gravity
well implied by the curve of equation 1.
If we are prepared to accept a singularity at t = 0 with an infinitely high
density, pressure and temperature, why can we not tolerate a universe with
infinite extent? If there are as many as 11 dimensions in our universe,
re-emergent on a super macro scale, then might not this supposed singularity
morph to a “singular surface” when viewed from a different perspective? This
singular surface might act like an enormous phase boundary so that our universe
would have come to exist within this surface, like a system of countless
galactic superclusters in Flatland10. Perhaps this would serve as a
rationale for this universe having come into being as a virtual particle, which
implies the participation of the surface of a black-hole. This is because we
have not yet been annihilated by our anti-universe. And, this quantum
anti-universe must surely still exist - accounting for the absence of antimatter
in our world. This singular surface could be the phase boundary or the “true
event horizon” of the ultimate black-hole, the mother of all black-holes or the
MOAB. The multiverse would be explained by noting that all the other particles
and antiparticles in the necessary statistical ensemble that may be formed near
the surface of the MOAB would exist in the same space, as far as we are
concerned, and may thus be superposed and hybridized to give the overlap mixture
of a world that is experienced by observers.
All plots herein were
produced using the mathematical analysis program
TK Solver Plus 5.0
by UTS.
The diagram of H, H0,
and accelerating expansion versus time was done using Corel Draw! by Corel
Corporation.
Gary Kentgen 22fb10
(715) 529-7591
kentgen1@aol.com,
www.neocosmology.blogspot.com
333 West Lincoln Avenue, PO Box 93, Fall Creek
Wisconsin 54742
BANG!
1 Allan Guth,
Inflationary Universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,
Phys Rev D, 23/2, 347-356 (15ja81)
The
Inflationary Universe, Perseus Books, 1997
2 Edwin Hubble, "A
relation between distance & radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae"
PNAS
15 (3): 168–173 (1929).
3 Tony Smith,
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/cosconsensus.html
4 George Ellis, Nature
452, 158-161, (13mr08) Published online 12mr08
5
Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_(physics)
6 Emmy Noether,
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm
7 Adam Reiss, Ron
Gilliland, et al, Astron. J. 116, 1009 - 1038 (1998)
8 Saul Perlmutter, et al,
Astrophys. J. 517, 565-586 (1999)
9 George Ellis, ibid
10 Flatland - A Romance in
Many Dimensions, Edwin A. Abbott, 1884
______________________________________________________________________________
Back to part 2 Back to
Part 1B "part 1A, continued"
Back to
part 1A: Graphical Model of the Universe (begin)
THE DOVE IN THE MOON
Well, she's not actually IN it, but she looks like
she would like to be and is thinking very seriously about
it!
| 
