Big Wave Model
Big Bang? Public Forum
Roger A. Rydin, ScD
Last updated 4/14/17, back on line with Utube lectures (New Baby Black Hole, LHC Lead Ion Collisions, Dark Energy,New Giant Void, More on Supernovas, New Theory of Gravity and Standard Model, plus Smoot's CMB and Black Hole Research, and More on GRBs, Gravity Waves and Inflation)
E-mail me ! at
Let's Discuss the Known Facts About the Universe
The purpose of this site is to explore ideas. Nothing is off limits! Did the universe begin instantly at an infinitesimal point, or did it begin some other way? You are invited to discuss the philosophy of creation, nuclear physics on the sub-nuclear particle scale, astronomy on the galactic scale, and/or the engineering aspects of explosive nuclear energy production.
This site consists of a series of essays. The most important ones are listed on the left-hand-side of this page and can be entered by clicking on the blue colored words and exited by going back. Less important essays are included in the text as blue colored words on the right-hand-side of this page or inside the other essays. They are all updated regularly as I find new information or have new ideas thrust upon me. Have fun reading and thinking about the various issues raised herein!
The Case For and Against the Conventional Cosmological Model
The major evidence for the General-Relativity-based Cosmological Model of the Big Bang consists of: 1) an observed radial Hubble Expansion movement of galaxies in the universe away from Earth; 2) a remarkably uniform measured Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) of radio noise, and: 3) a relative proportion of light elements that corresponds to a hot plasma phase of nucleosynthesis [a buildup of light isotopes by capture and decay] existing everywhere in space at some time in the past. It was reported in February 2003 that the Cosmic Microwave Background has been re-measured over a large segment of space, and a pattern of temperature fluctuations of the order of a millionth of a degree, when compared to theory, is taken to be proof that the Cosmological Model is correct. According to this theory, "the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, to a precision of 1%, and the universe will expand forever."
The new CMB data have enabled scientists to produce the most exact theoretical calculation ever of what the cosmos is made of today. "It turns out that only 4 percent of the universe is made up of atoms with known forces such as electromagnetism and gravity, the ordinary stuff that makes people, potatoes, porcelain and everything else that humans know. Twenty-three percent of the universe is made from mysterious unseen material dubbed 'dark matter' because scientists know so little about it (translation, know nothing at all). The remainder - 73 percent - is made up of yet another poorly understood force (translation, complete mystery) called 'Dark Energy', which is also known as antigravity. This is the only conclusion one can come to, strange as it is. It's fantasy, but you know it is fantasy turned real. It's unbelievable but true."
New experiments seem to support the theory of Gravitational Waves and inflation to instantly grow the universe to a size that then can be extrapolated to the present day, but is this data believable?.
But there is major evidence against the Cosmological Model as well. The age of the universe is in doubt by at least 50%, with some objects seeming to be older than the universe itself! The Evolution of Superclusters clearly argues for a much older universe. What is the Over-and-Back Paradox concerning age? A precision of 1% in the age based on theory alone doesn't mean that the accuracy is even within a factor of two!
We don't know how to explain the origin of the measured periodic distribution of galaxies in galactic Great Walls and voids, including the newly discovered Giant Void, or indeed why the distribution and period is the same in all directions away from us! We don't know why the quasars are apparently distributed in a spherical annulus surrounding the Earth. And we don't know what constitutes more than 90% of the mass of the universe, as theoretically predicted to exist by the Cosmological Model, or if this mass is indeed missing!
A variety of other models have been proposed as alternatives to the Big Bang, based upon the idea that a spectral redshift of light does not correspond to a Doppler effect velocity but is explained by other processes. All of these have the same problem in common. Hoyle proposed his Steady State Universe model as an alternative to the Big Bang after he gave up on a repeating universe because he could see no way for all of the matter to escape a central black hole, or if it could, how it could be reconverted into hydrogen to begin a new cycle. Without a process to replenish hydrogen, static models will eventually use up the hydrogen in producing heavy elements, those up to the Z = 26 of iron in stars and up to the Z = 92 of uranium in supernovae. So these are irreversible processes that lead to the eventual stagnation and death of such universes.
As a matter of fact, no pure random process driven by gravity alone could produce a regular and symmetric pattern of Great Walls, no matter how old the universe is assumed to be! Is there another model that might conform to all of the known facts? Would you like to know what its features it might be? Read on!
New Big Wave Model
From my detailed Critique, and critiques written by many others, it should be clear that something is seriously wrong with the Conventional Big Bang model. Here, I propose an alternative model that admittedly may or may not be the correct solution. It is based on fitting experimental evidence on galaxy distributions to a simple quantum mechanics spherical solution that mimics the measured periodic deep galactic redshift distributions. To the criticism that I am not starting from General Relativity, I reply that there is insufficient evidence that General Relativity itself is complete or even properly posed for this problem!
The Big Wave model is the only model ever postulated that has the potential to explain the origin of the periodic Great Walls of galaxies, explains how galaxies formed in a reasonable period of time, explains why the quasars lie in a spherical annulus surrounding Earth, and reconciles all the data on the age of the universe. It is consistent with the observation that the field of stars and galaxies does not rotate with respect to the Earth. It reconciles the logical contradiction between the centerless expanding balloon idea that all observers see the same universe and its companion idea that we can almost see the beginning of our universe in all directions just at the far edge of our sight. And it consequently explains why there isn't any missing exotic dark mass.
According to this model, the universe has a cycle of birth and death. What are the conditions of this cycle, According to Hoyle? The first time a new nuclear reactor is started, it has a unique lifetime history. But after it has been refueled several times, it gets into an equilibrium cycle, where the space-time response is the same each time. This new universe model is in the equilibrium cycle, where spherical universes are nestled against each other in pre-existing space like springy rubber balls, providing continuity boundary conditions for each other. The matter in our own universe is in an expansion phase about its local origin, and adjacent universes can be either in expansion or contraction. In the beginning, God may have just dumped matter and energy all over the place, set the rules of gravitational attraction, particle combination, etc., and let it all start to move. The particle theorists may be correctly describing this initial phase of the hot primordial Big Bang, but not the present phase. There are Four Main Steps to the model.
Other Major Questions
Is General Relativity valid? What about Black Holes? Read about Relativistic Effects. It has been experimentally established that accelerated single particles act in accordance with relativity as if they increase in mass when they are accelerated to near the speed of light. Has this principle been established on the macroscopic scale? If we interpret the relative speed of a galaxy away from us as being a few tenths of c, does that mean that all the atoms in that galaxy have increased in mass? I don't think so, because the physical atomic transitions that we interpret as redshift are a fraction of an eV, and there is no apparent spectral differential caused by the relative masses of protons and electrons translating together at a fraction of c. The relativity effect must only refer to the kinetic energy needed to attain that velocity.
This interpretation is consistent with the Hatch interpretation of the clock synchronization experiments, which do not agree with General Relativity or with Special Relativity. I cannot see how these results extend to the limit of galactic motions and high gravity situations, if they apply at all. Nor is it clear that any of these equations apply in limiting situations approaching a singularity.
What are the Quantum Mechanical Effects involved in the new model? Do we know everything there is to know about the Standard Nuclear Model? Is it completely valid? What is happening at the Large Hadron Collider? What was the status of Nuclear Physics in 1955, and what did Robley Evans conclude about the nucleus at that time? Do the modern field theories really support the existence of massive exchange particles to provide short range nuclear forces?
Life as we know it is a continuous cycle of birth and death. Stars are born and die of old age or end in a supernova. What is the actual destruction mechanism in a supernova? Is it a gravitational energy release, or a nuclear energy release, or both?
Was the gamma ray burst reported by two teams of astronomers in May 2002 the result of an extremely powerful supernova 5 billion light years away, or was it the result of a collision and a nuclear reaction between two stars?
There is new Black Hole Research, and some of it is aimed at probing the black hole at the Center of the Milky Way. Unfortunately, the researchers hope to confirm the General Relativity idea of what might be happening there, rather than first observing and then theorizing about what the data means.
Black Holes form from collapsed giant stars. What is the structure inside a black hole? Does it resemble an atom or a neutron star? Is it a true mathematical singularity? Do black holes bend the space around them or only bend light? Are they full of quark Goo? Can black holes also be destroyed?
Philosophical Boundary Conditions
If God Is So Great, why did He make only one universe? This is a philosophical question. Think of the biggest number you can think of, and then make it a billion times bigger! Think of the largest object you can think of, and then make it a billion times larger! Why should there be an upper limit? Could ours be only one of many universes? What are the scientific consequences?
Check me out. I'm an MIT graduate. I've just retired in the year 2000 after 30 years at the University of Virginia as an Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering. I've published lots of papers and a textbook on reactor physics. One of my former students dubbed me, "Fortran Man".
Read the attached articles. Send me your comments, objections, observations and criticisms, and I'll publish a summary of them and my response. Let's advance knowledge together!