Zetas, Black Holes and Cosmology
The Zetas (some would call them Nancy's "internal voices") have had this
to say about black holes:
"What is a black hole, and does matter go in and never
come out? All is relative, and the denseness of black
holes only seems so to humans because they have no
basis of comparison. Also, as nothing seems to be
coming out, humans assume this is a bottomless pit
of some sort, and frankly fear black holes. They
serve a purpose, however, and are part of God's plan
for renewing the Universe. You know about the concept
of the big bang, which we have explained as setting
the clock back on a part of the Universe, a type of
refreshed state. The big bang requires something to
bang from, and that state is what the black holes are
accumulating."
Copyright ZetaTalk.
Also:
"Following a Big Bang, particular matter forms along
the following lines. First, the explosion of matter
from a Black Hole, which has grown monstrously large
in the eons leading up to a particular Big Bang, is
not even. No explosions are even, and all affect
different parts of the matter they are affecting at
different rates and times. Thus, particular matter
coming out of a Big Bang is not even, all the same
composition. Just as your Sun, which seems to be of
the same consistency, is not homogeneous, and just
as the core or magma of your Earth is not homogeneous,
just so the matter coming out of a Big Bang quickly
becomes differentiated. There are literally millions
of factors affecting what a bit of matter will become,
and the sum of these factors affect how that bit of
matter will interact for it's existence until the next
Big Bang it finds itself entangled in."
Copyright ZetaTalk.
When you strip all of the words away, what is being stated looks
something that more resembles the steady state universe theory where
various pockets of the universe undergo a local "big crunch" and then
explode (local big bang), to form a new "neighborhood" so to speak. It
is the ultimate in Urban Renewal.
Now this could easily be dismissed as yet another New Age bunch of
gobbledygook (or worse yet, Nancy's voices in her head) except for one
thing.
In last month's Smithsonian magazine there was an article about large
scale mapping of the universe.
The article discusses the work of Dr. Margaret Geller. What is being
done is to create an enormous spectral analyzer to measure the red shift
of galaxies.
There are hundreds of CCD spectral analyzers connected to individual
fiber optic cables. The ends of the fibers are robotically moved to the
coordinates of a known galaxy, to within an amazing degree of
precision. The entire assembly is at the focus of a large aperture
telescope such that the image of many galaxies is formed onto the ends
of the fibers. This way hundreds of spectral measurements can be made
in a short time, and the data recorded. After accumulating data, the
robotic arm moves the fiber ends to a new list of coordinates, and the
process begins anew. In this way, the machine can produce spectral data
for thousands of galaxies per night. After doing this for many days,
you accumulate a lot of data over a large area.
What is being measured is the red shift, which is thought to be an
indicator of distance to the galaxy. Knowing the location in the sky
and the distance, a 3-D map of the universe can be created. Past work
on this has shown that there is structure at all levels of measurement.
Solar systems have structure and they and other stars collect into
gobular clusters and galaxies. Galaxies collect into groups and these
groups collect into larger groups of groups. There was even discovered
a structure referred to as the "Great Wall" because it is this enormous
group of galaxy clusters, the size of which is a little hard to
appreciate without using the units of Sagans ("billions and billions").
In the article in the magazine (and reproduced in miniature on the web)
is a computer and artistic rendering of the data from the current sky
surveys. What stunned me so when I look at the picture (and I highly
recommend the actual magazine, the *.gif loses a lot in shrinkage) is
how clearly a "bubble" universe comes across. The galaxies are all
located on the surface of imaginary bubbles (rendered in the picture)
and the great wall just happens to be at the collision of a number of
bubbles. Some bubbles are large, some are small. (Small is of course,
relative, all of these structures are so large it is hard to truly
comprehend).
In other words, the repeating pattern of "local big bangs" model, as
proposed by the Zetas, fits incredibly well with the picture we see. At
the center of each bubble (a long time ago) was that enormous black hole
they mention.
To contrast that with our current state of cosmology, one should note
that our current model of the universe starts with one basic assumption:
The frequency of light as it propagates across the universe does not
change.
This means that the doppler red shift observed for galaxies implies that
they are moving away, and a blue shift would imply that they are moving
towards us. Actual observation of course shows that almost all galaxies
are moving away, the smaller (in appearance) and dimmer ones rather
quickly. This can only be explained if the universe is expanding.
Since the universe is expanding, it must have been smaller at one time,
and reversing things all the way back to the beginning means it all came
from one place. (Hoboken, N.J.) The conclusion that makes sense and
fits the known data is that the red shift is related to the distance
(which is what allows us to make the above mentioned 3-D map to begin
with).
The so-called "smoking gun" for the big bang theory is the uniform 3K
background radiation. It can "only" be explained by the cooling of the
hot fire-ball of the big bang, so its existence means there once was a
hot fireball. Therefore, big bang.
There are a couple of problems with the big bang theory. First and
foremost it requires that we extrapolate our current physical theories
back to 10^-50 second and up to enormous energies which to me always
seemed like we were just making this crap up. (Imagine any other human
endeavor where we extrapolated our data set over 16 orders of magnitude
without blinking.) Second (and more accepted) is that there is the
problem of "flatness" where the universe appears to have a flat
Euclidean geometry rather than either a spherical (closed) or saddle
(open) geometry. All data points to the fact that our universe is as
flat as we can measure it. To achieve this degree of flatness, a
parameter called omega must be tuned to be 1.0 to within 100 orders of
magnitude. There is no other thing in science known that even
approaches this precision requirement, so just invoking the
"anthropomorphic principal" (we are here to observe it, so no matter how
improbable, it is the only thing that works and produces humans) seems,
again, like we are just making this up. There is also the uniformity
problem. The big bang would arise out of a singularity which has
extremely high entropy (because of the second law of thermodynamics) and
so would uniformly spew matter and energy everywhere. If so, how did
the universe come to be so "lumpy" because no matter what we look at, we
find structure (like the Great Wall). Also the 3K background radiation
is very flat. (New data seems to allow for tiny variations which is
making the cosmologists breathe a bit easier.)
The solution to these problems is to introduce "inflation", an
exponential doubling in size of the universe from the singularity on
every 10^-53 seconds. It is a Wall Street brokerage firm's dream -
unconstrained exponential growth. Because it grows so big so fast, it
drives omega to unity and tends to create a bumpy universe because space
is being created faster than light can connect separate regions. It is
a great theory and has a lot of math and equations about it, but still,
is is just So Much Hand Waving. I mean, really, get a grip. There is
no other parallel in any other area of science (exponential growth) that
does not quickly exhaust some resource, otherwise the universe would
consist of one solid mass of bacteria. And, yes, I've read Guth's book.
But there is that damn picture. And it bugs me. All of our current
cosmology is based on that assumption that the frequency does not change
as the the light propagates across the universe. It is, after all,
reasonable as there is not a lot of data to suggest otherwise and no
known theory explains why it should not be so.
Plus (I know what you might be thinking) there is the famous experiment
"confirming" Einstein's geometric interpretation of gravity. A star was
seen "too long" as it passed behind the eclipsed image of the sun
indicating that space was curved near the high gravitational field of
the sun. This is great but it is also a circular argument. Space is
curved near gravitational objects because light bends and light is
"known" to not be affected by gravity. After all, since light
propagates undisturbed through space (we assume) any deviation must be
geometric, not a force interaction.
If we discard the assumption, all of the current big bang theory
collapses. Discarding this theory is not as ridiculous as it seems at
first blush. There have been a number of "lazy light" explanations
offered for the red shift of distant objects which would preserve
correlation between distance and the red shift. If we allow for the
gravitational attraction of light as the explanation for Einstein's
prediction then it does not seem so unreasonable that a gravitational
field could also leak away the energy of the light (i.e. frequency
shift) as it propagates over the vast distances. The magnitude of the
effect is clearly small or we would have observed it in local
experiments. But small effects should not bother us, after all we were
willing to accept an accuracy requirement of 10^-100 for the big bang
model.
Well, what about the 3K background radiation? You ask. That is the
smoking gun, after all. Explain that, huh?
We have four known forces, strong, weak, electromagnetic and
gravitational. To within a few orders of magnitude, the strong, weak
and electromagnetic all are about the same strength. Gravity is 10^43
times as strong. Now this is a Big Delta. Current cosmology allows for
the strong force as the force that powers stars, the weak force that
powers radioactive decay, and gravity. For some reason,
electromagnetism just gets ignored. This is strange, how could
something that is 10^43 times more powerful than gravity NOT HAVE A
*BIG* EFFECT?
Alfven (who as one of the few double Nobel Prize winners, is no
intellectual slouch) has presented models (which are ignored by the
cosmological community by that concept called "peer review" that
prevents outsiders from publishing in accepted journals, and then
discredits the author by saying "yes, but he was never published") that
predict an enormous electromagnetic current flow that occurs at the
galaxy level. Basically what he is saying is that a galaxy (and solar
system while it is still a cloud of plasma, for that matter) are giant
dynamos. This could explain where all the angular momentum goes when a
solar system condenses and also when a galaxy forms. It can also
explain the 3K background radiation. Because of the galaxy sized dynamo
and the interaction of the galactic currents with all of the component
solar systems, radiation from any number of sources could easily get
wound up in the spaghetti like tangle of magnetic field lines that
Alfven predicts exist in the galaxy. This redirection of radiation as
it wobbles around the tangle of lines would mean that at the radio
frequencies of interest we are looking at the universe through a
veritable fog. Through the fog would be a uniform glow, just like we
observe, with subtle lumps according to the magnetic "strands of
spaghetti" that we are looking through.
In other words, the 3K background has another explanation, although not
one widely accepted.
Now how might the "lazy light" hypothesis prove true? Well, first off
we assume that gravity does not affect light. If we are going to make
one assumption, we might as well make another, either way there is not a
lot of data. Second, space is not a vacuum anyway. According to the
standard model, the vacuum is a virtual sea of particles popping in and
out. What could the interactions be to a photon coming from a galaxy 5
billion light years out? After all, there might not be a lot of matter
between here and there, but there would be a veritable soup of virtual
bubbling. Is it so easy to discount the possibility of an interaction?
Maybe the photon leaks energy all by itself. So you don't like effects
without a cause? What about beta decay or quantum tunneling, both of
which have industrial applications? The uranium is just sitting there
for a billion years, and Just Then decides to decay. I mean, just all
by itself, without cause? Just because God plays dice and it was that
atom's unlucky day?
Anyway, we cannot prove that it is even the same photon, because the
standard model suggests that asking the question "is it the same photon"
is a meaningless question. According to the standard model, all photons
with the same quantum state are indistinguishable, even in principal.
Since we cannot determine if it is the same photon that was emitted by
the star, 5 billion years ago, we cannot also state that it has not
changed, we can only measure its quantum state today.
Finally, you are going to ask,"well, what about the second law of
thermodynamics"? A recycling model would seem to violate that. Yes,
well what about the second law? One of the accepted possibilities with
the current big bang theory is that the universe is closed because omega
is slightly greater than one. Eventually the universe would collapse
back in on itself. But how could the second law allow for this? Where
would the entropy go? If you want to hang on to the second law as an
exclusion, you HAVE to exclude the closed universe possibility. If you
do that, what about the rest of the big bang theory? Can you still hang
onto it even though you just arbitrarily cut off half of the
possibilities? Also, whether or not the second law applies to the
universe as a whole, or even large sections of it, has been debated by
people well respected in cosmology.
Then there is the age problem. Some of the stars (galaxies) seem older
than the universe. Which is a clear problem. The last published result
was a 20-30 billion year old object in a 12 billion year universe. (It
was in the news a few months back). How could this be unless maybe the
universe is really much larger than we give it credit for and we just
have not "seen to the edge" yet?
A few years back it was reported by some of our satellites that we
detected this enormous magnetic pulse that seemed to come from a vast
distance from a particular region of the sky. The energy requirements
stated at the time to create this pulse were just off the charts. Might
that not have been the echo of a new big bang "nearby"? It is only one
data point, but it is an annoying one to explain.
So the bottom line is that the Zetas explanation of the universe becomes
a little more difficult to just blow off when you look at that picture
in Smithsonian. The explanation is admittedly a little simplistic and
all the math is missing for the calculus lovers, but when I look at that
picture and think about the elegance of a "local big bang" model, it
becomes extremely hard to discount. All we have to do is let go of the
one assumption and look for some new data. Oh, and also discard that
ridiculous inflationary model.
The Small Kahuna
