The Final Theory

[Tom Palmer]

When I was growing up back in the 1940's, there was a clever Arlen-Mercer song that was a big hit. It advised: “(You got to) Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative, Latch on to the Affirmative, And don’t mess with Mister In-Between.”

One of my problems with Mark McCutcheon’s world-view is the manner in which he “eliminates the negative.” The uninformed reader won’t notice it, but it’s there, just the same. It is called “finessing,” and I see evidence that he relies on it heavily.

A conventional idea clashes with his model?
Step 1: Proclaim it to be wrong.
Step 2. Throw in a stopgap ad-hoc notion to replace it, ignore the obvious objections to the new notion, and call it proof (e.g., tides caused by wobble in the earth’s spin).
Step 3: Remind the reader that new ideas have always been rejected and their creators vilified.
Step 4 (optional): Throw in a little of your own vilification. Knock the physics establishment. Mount a subtle ad hominem attack on Newton, Einstein, et al. (never mind that you have elsewhere acknowledged the usefulness of their contributions.)

And his publisher is guilty of the same bad habit, evidently with his approval. Consider the so-called “Professional Reviews” shown on the book’s website. It strikes me a little odd that they used the plural, when there is exactly one such review. But let’s not be picky - we’ll just take a closer look at that one lone review.

It is by Chris Benfield, a writer for the Yorkshire Post in England. Now, Chris is a stand-up guy - I know this because I e-mailed him on his newspaper’s website, and he promptly responded, kindly e-mailing me the entire text of his article on “The Final Theory.”

I must admit that the article was very balanced and fair. It was clearly not Chris’ intent to denigrate the book, but, on the other hand, he did not give it his endorsement either. Reading the article gave me a chance to compare the publisher’s quotes with the original review itself.

Chris was identified by the book’s publisher as a “science writer,” but the implication that science is his specialty may be wide of the mark. Browse the Post’s website, and you will find that Chris writes on a variety of news and topics. But - on to the quotes!

One quote is exact: “If there is an award for most ambitious amateur scientist of 2003, Mark McCutcheon must be a candidate.” But note that the reference is to his being “ambitious” - and nothing more.

The other quote was souped up a little: “My favorite science theory of the year!” The referenced statement was drawn from the lead-in to Chris’ article: “Hang on to your seats. They could be moving towards outer space at 16 feet a second. Chris Benfield explains his favourite science theory of the year just gone [2003].”

“Favorite” can mean any number of things besides utter conviction that the theory is a slam-dunk. Some have said it is a “good read.” Others attest that they learned a lot of science from it. Some find his irreverence for “sacred cows” appealing, etc. So we can’t infer too much there.

The book’s publisher changed this quote from third person (“his favourite . . .”) to first person (“My favorite”). No big deal, but still, it’s supposed to be a direct quote.

The other tweaking was the addition of an exclamation mark. And doing that made it a big fat lie. It implies enthusiasm and, by implication, acceptance of the theory. And so, that one little mark is a big deal.

In Chris Benfield’s e-mail to me, he included a short second article entitled “Pioneers in the Appliance of Science.” It briefly outlines the contributions of Newton, Einstein, and McCutcheon. In each case, Chris Benfield then asks: “What’s wrong with what he said/says?” In the first two instances, unanswered questions remained.

And McCutcheon? “So far, you cannot find a scientist to take it seriously. And it’s like the theory that the moon is made of green cheese - arguable, but unlikely on the face of it.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the publisher to add that little remark to his less-than-multitudinous “Professional Reviews.”

Tom Palmer

[coldcreation]

CraigD, though I agree with most of your red flags and your other words, there is a problem with the 3rd red flag. You write: “3. It states or implies that existing theories are too badly flawed to be expanded or corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is necessary.”

Your use of the word “theories” is vague. For example, being more specific, I could state that existing theories, big bang models, inflation, new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, the ekpyrotic model, GUTs, string theory, superstring theory, M-theory, just to name a few, are too badly flawed to be corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is required.

Your use of the word “theories” seems to group other theories that have been tested, e.g., general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Why? Ultimately, a new theory is required if ever unification is to be understood, if ever the origin of the universe is to be understood, and if ever gravity is to be understood (we may as well though in the cosmological constant into the melée).

Finally, you write “Regardless of how revolutionary a scientific theory is, it must make experimentally testable predictions. Extraordinary claims require proof, in the form of experimental confirmation of these claims. Appeals to intuition and simplicity are not enough.” You certainly know that string theory, M-theory, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation make extraordinary claims (extra dimensions, branes, extra universes) that cannot be tested or observed, ever.

The other theories (big bang models, inflation, new inflation...) had made predictions that turned out to be erroneous: the expansion deceleration parameter turned out to be an acceleration parameter, the universe is not flat now, the galaxy formation era that was thought (predicted) to exist a billion years after t = 0 is not there (see the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field image available online), the Hubble Law or predicted velocity dispersions of galaxies, quasars, supernovae, etc. is violated just about everywhere (see the photographic plates yourself: Arp, H. 1998, Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science).

Clearly, in absence of a solid basis of observational verification or experimental corroboration, a projected hypothesis is not on firm ground. Modern cosmology and the ‘new physics’ it has erected to fill the growing breach between theory and empirical evidence has fallen prey to man-made contrivance. Like the concept of god, the big bang should have gone to wrack and ruin long ago. Now, one can declare what one likes and cannot be proved wrong; and so, is liberated from the standard restraints of scientific discipline. Any wacky theory or madcap philosophy submitted by a well-known physicist these days is potentially a whole career move, especially if a television crew is hovering in the vicinity.

The aim of this debate is to open an objective discussion of the evidence, or lack of evidence, that supports or undermines the standard model, our interpretations, and our uncertainties; not based on a dogmatic proclamation of unconditional truth, but to open locked doors that will lead to fresh insight, or at least indicate the most hopeful direction and method of exploration; and which hold the most promising potential for reaching solid conclusions in the future.

The standard model and those theories that battle for pole-position have been tremendously significant to the field of cosmology, as they have provided a basis for the assembly of decisive tests to verify the consistency of the sub-structure and reliability of the theories when confronted by observations. But when the consistency and reliability is deficient, or nonexistent, a confrontation arises; either we modify or abandon the models.

One fundamental issue we are obliged to face here is not which model do we choose as the standard model; clearly the problems stem from the fact that inflation and the likes are based on the requirement that the universe is expanding, which inevitably leads to some form of initial hot dense high energy phase when the clocks are reversed and where all known physical laws become useless.

A theory should be chosen for its internal consistency, simplicity and aesthetic appeal, its beauty and elegance; its logical tightness, free from initial conditions, arbitrariness of relationships and parameters; it must have strong intrinsic and extrinsic explanatory power that provides a basis for further development; across all fields of physics. The theory must be capable of making predictions that can be tested and substantiated observationally; it should possess a sound conceptual framework within which data can be analyzed and interpreted; its implications must allow for meaningful scientific investigation and healthy debate within the cosmological community as well as outside of this domain.

Notwithstanding all this, the old vision offered by modern cosmology makes it inevitable now to see an enormous question mark suspended around the vacuous concept of “origin” and the vital responsibility it might assume in our conception of both the underpinning of physical science and the nature of the universe in its entirety.

There can be no doubt: if the Doppler interpretation for redshift is wrong, as will be demonstrated is very likely the case, expansion is not real, the glitzy big bang congregation falls, the primordial creation of light elements evaporates along with the supposed origin of CMB. So too does a large chunk of the framework developed by astro-particle physicists disappear, the primary focus of which has paralleled and supported quantum high-energy interactions that are supposed to have transpired in and around an event that may never have happened. Hypothetical super-heavy non-baryonic particles and superstrings are entirely founded upon ideas that correspond to massive extrapolations from well-recognized physics. An immeasurable convoluted scaffold has been erected that has not yet attained experimental substantiation and in most cases can never be authenticated or validated observationally.

Every qualified scientist (vanity and carnal ambition aside) knows that only observational and experimental verification can determine the final outcome of a theory, its acceptance, or its downfall. If resolution of today’s controversies are to be attained, the theory, whichever one is chosen as the new standard model, has to be established empirically.

A comprehensive challenge has been mounted against the assumptions, practices and priorities that go with big bang cosmology. It is a challenge in physics as much as in observational cosmology, based on the belief only in the reality of natural processes, rooted in big bang skepticism and directed against the superior status of the event as a god-like creator. It is a challenge that holds positive alternatives, alternatives that require a radical change of attitude towards the universe and its making.

Everyone should take an imperative look at the most recent empirical evidence and examined by what means accurate interpretations of the data can be made; and how innovative conclusions can be drawn that attempt to conquer the difficulties presented by modern cosmology and the messianic prophesies of the Friedmann-Lemaître burnt offerings.

Conclusion: it is time for change.

A.M. ColdCreation

[CraigD]

Your use of the word “theories” is vague. For example, being more specific, I could state that existing theories, big bang models, inflation, new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, the ekpyrotic model, GUTs, string theory, superstring theory, M-theory, just to name a few, are too badly flawed to be corrected, and that a new, radically different theory is required.

I agree that “theories” is a troublesome term. I like the wikipedia article for “theory”, which suggests that several of the “theories” you list – ones that have not made practically testable predictions - could better be described as “bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience.” A short, easy to remember word to make this distinction would be a welcome addition to scientific language, but I don’t know of one in widespread usage. For now, I’ll use “prototheory”.

You certainly know that string theory, M-theory, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation make extraordinary claims (extra dimensions, branes, extra universes) that cannot be tested or observed, ever.

I admit that using the various string, “brane”, and other “theories of everything” to make testable predictions is daunting. It’s tempting to consider many of them to be empty formalisms, no more significant than a particular algebraic substitution made while solving a mechanical question. Still, none of the widely published prototheories of which I’m aware seem in principle untestable.

Inflation cosmologies are, I think, too empirical and ad-hock to deserve the same status of Particle Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity. It’s my hope that these more fundamental theories may eventually inform cosmology, which, at the present time, remind me of pre-Copernican solar system models – struggling to explain observation, but doing so by conjecturing much that’s not supportable by fundamental theory.

Multiple, completely causally unconnected universes are, I believe, more useful educational analogies than scientific theory. Had I been on Hugh Everett’s dissertation panel, he would not have gotten his Physics PHD on the strength of that idea, interesting though it is, and smart guy though he was.

The other theories (big bang models, inflation, new inflation...) had made predictions that turned out to be erroneous

This illustrates well the difference between a bad, unscientific theory, and a good, scientific one that is simply wrong. A good, wrong theory can be falsified, and discarded, in many cases with many of its concepts and formalism intact for reuse in a new theory.

I think we agree that cosmology stands out among families of theories, in that we'd very much like to have a cosmological theory as successful as GR or QPM, but don’t yet. Even if all of them to date are terribly wrong, the credible ones I’ve encountered all pass my “baloney test”. Notably, and unlike the McCutcheon’s claim, none of them demand that GR or QPM be completely overturned (red flag 3).

I gather it from your screenname that you favor something radically removed from the big bang model. I’m curious to know what.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I gather it from your screenname that you favor something radically removed from the big bang model. I’m curious to know what.

It’s almost entertaining the search for an ultimate theory has led to predictions that cannot be tested, even in principle. It is unlikely a particle accelerator will be built large enough. Entertaining, because it shows what happens to theory when successive modifications are piled one on top of the other, rather than one drastic change. Understandably, physicists are looking at minuscule scales, short time spans, and extremely high energy, density, temperature, and into other dimensions with the minds eye. That ‘new physics’ is sought comes as no surprise either. After all, what good is a theory of everything if doesn’t explain the state of the universe at t = 0. Real physics does not work when applied to such events.

It is hard to believe, however, that the problems in contemporary physics is of gravitational origin. Einstein’s theory is so beautiful, with its curved space, it’s time dilation (or relative contraction), its equivalence principle, its symmetry (with the cosmological constant), its gravitational redshift (or blueshift), its gravitational lensing, deflection of light rays, its resolution of Mercury’s perihelion-shift, its prediction of gravitational waves, and its non-Euclidean universe. What more could one ask of a theory?

The expansion theory under review in this thread has simply reversed the problem of gravity, albeit in a twisted way: Before, an apple fell to the ground. Now the ground falls to the apple. It does wisely point to gravity as the problem, though hardly a surprising. Everyone knows gravity is the ‘oddball force.’ Einstein, like Newton at an other time, realized the limitations of his theory. Despite, his main battle in the search for a unified theory was of course against quantum mechanics (not without reason).

The principle limitation posed by the general postulate of relativity is that there is no limitation imposed to the depth of a potential well. The gravity field could bend to infinity if nature would so allow. GR imposed no limit on the extent to which space could be stretched or compressed. So too would the problem of gravity tend to the other end of the spectrum. If the cosmological constant (lambda) was to be taken at face value (as vacuum energy or pressure that countered gravity) there was no limit to its repulsive potential.

Note that a cosmological constant of this type could replace gravity in GR. Imagine a theory of spacetime curvature without gravity. Instead of an apple falling through a curved spacetime continuum emanating from the center of the earth, the apple is pushed from space through curved spacetime. The apparent untenable nature of this hypothesis manifests itself when one looks in vain for a source of repulsion, the mechanism involved.

The other limitation of GR (and it’s related to the above) is the lack of a defined mechanism involved in the gravitational interaction. And because of the lack of an explicit mechanism, the long-term stability of bounded self-gravitating systems is unexplainable without the use of artificial initial conditions and a finely tuned centrifugal force. This problem is at least 300 years old. Einstein’s general theory does not resolve the issue. It had been thought long before the outset of GR that the universe is unstable against collapse or expansion, even with lambda. No matter how lambda is tweaked, a pensile never stands on its point, even with the aid of some imponderable agent (today dubbed dark energy).

The three Friedmann’s models came as no surprise, not even the one where the finely tuned universe coasts to infinity (where ‘outward’ velocity exactly cancels the ‘inward’ pull gravity. What would come as a surprise to everyone was a fourth unpredicted model, where the expansion picks up speed on its mad race into oblivion.

So, what more could be asked of GR, a theory whose only limitations are that it imposes no limitations on curvature, and by implication, on mass-density, energy or pressure (which can all tend to infinity on paper)? Recall Einstein’s words on the subject, ’One may...not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter...’ (Pais, A. 1982). Einstein was convinced that nature would forbid such extremes, but how?

For the solution to this dilemma one must turn to low energy interactions. Enter Cold Creation. But this is neither the place, nor the time to elaborate. What can be written here and now is that resolution of the cosmological crisis (the unification problem) is possible without new physics.

Coldcreation

[questor]

Hello, i have just joined this group and read a number of the posts. i am not a math major, but i have been schooled in the sciences and scientific principles. it is obvious that members of this group are well read, intelligent and interested in their subject which could be defined simply as ''How Do Things Work''. it seems to me that at this point in time, the answer is simply ''We Don't Know''. if one accepts superstring theory, the vibrating strings
of energy lie at the bottom of the pile. the question might then become ''who ( what)
created or designed these strings and what is the source of their energy and does the energy dissipate, and over what time period""
my question is this--what is at the bottom of the pile?
consider the life force itself. what is it? does it have mass? does it have direction? can it be
measured? does it have electric potential? is this not the most sophisticated force in the universe since it energizes and motivates the most sophisticated organism in the universe
as we know it? is it not highly probable or even self evident that some superior agent created whatever exists at the bottom of the pile and is resposible for the continuum of events in the universe? if not-this means that this finely balanced system that man cannot understand just happened for no reason at all. if there was a superior agent at work, would we not call it the Creator? could we also call it God? this is not to say there is an elderly man in a white robe with a staff and angels around him, but i think that one must
admit there was a creator and God could be the unknown force at the bottom of the pile
this is certainly as easy to imagine as some of the theories extant today of which there
is no proof. Questor

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by questor

the unknown force at the bottom of the pile... there is no proof. Questor

I think you're in the wrong thread questor. This one has to do with physics, laws of nature, physical evidence, observable phenomena, theories that can be proved or disproved. It sounds like you're more interested in propagating myth.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Tom Palmer

Only two possible mechanisms for this phenomenon are known. One is gravitational, requiring an enormous mass for the star that emits the light. In this case, stars of differing mass would exhibit differing degrees of redshift.

The other mechanism is the Doppler effect. We know this is the true cause of the Hubble red shift because the shift is proportional to the distance (from us) of the galaxies emitting the light. The effect is far too general and all-embracing (too "global," in the parlance of physics) to allow for "local" effects such as space debris - which couldn't really explain it anyway.

Tom Palmer

Hello Tom Palmer, welcome,

I couldn’t help noticing a couple of phrases you wrote about the cosmological redshift: “Only two possible mechanisms for this phenomenon are known. One is gravitational, requiring an enormous mass for the star that emits the light. In this case, stars of differing mass would exhibit differing degrees of redshift.”

And, “The other mechanism is the Doppler effect. We know this is the true cause of the Hubble red shift because the shift is proportional to the distance (from us) of the galaxies emitting the light. The effect is far too general and all-embracing...to allow for "local" effects such as space debris - which couldn't really explain it anyway.”

You are correct about gravitational redshift. But you are referring to intrinsic gravitational redshift caused by the mass of individual stars (galaxies could be included too, in which case the central massive core has greater redshift than the outer edges). There are also intrinsic Doppler effects causing blueshift and redshift when object move toward or away from our restframe.

The problem arises when you write about the Doppler effect “We know this is the true...”

The fact is, it is not known to be true. The Doppler interpretation has many difficulties: quasars do not fit in, there are many objects that have luminous connecting bridges yet show very different redshifts, supernovae type Ia fit in only if expansion is accelerating (introducing the ugly concept of dark energy), not to mention that this interpretation leads to an initial event where all the laws of nature break down.

My point is that there is a third possibility, related to the intrinsic gravitational effect. It is the global spacetime curvature redshift interpretation.

In 1977, G. F. R. Ellis inscribed a seminal, but virtually unknown paper, titled Is the Universe Expanding? Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary. He adds that for this model to be viable “it is essential that local thermodynamic nonequilibrium processes be able to take place continually.” The key idea is that “there could be a continual circulation of matter taking place,” in this case it is possible to have nonequilibrium processes in a static universe.

There is a close analogy between the Friedmann models and the model proposed by Ellis, but the differences are astounding. What was previously ascribed to a time variation in an expanding frame is now ascribed to a spatial variation in properties of a static universe, as we observe the past light cone (in the look-back time). Herman Weyl had considered this possibility in 1921, when he still sought a middle ground between the Einstein and de Sitter models. Ellis urges “a closer investigation of the field equations and astrophysical aspects of these models” and considers that the interpretation of an expanding universe (an idea that was first put forth by de Sitter) “is based on the assumption of spatial homogeneity, which is made on philosophical rather than observational grounds.”

He also adds (in a manuscript note) that it is difficult to fit the mass-redshift observations well within a static universe. Meaning that there does not appear to be enough mass m in the universe to attribute the redshift z to a gravitational effect, and so considers this evidence against the stationary models. But at the same time, Ellis questions whether with a more detailed investigation, one could fit the mass-z relations accurately with observation, so that the results obtained are not implausible. (See Ellis, G.F.R. 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94).

Note that there are several attractive features of a universe where redshift is a cosmological spacetime curvature effect. These features are lacking (and in fact detrimental) in the Doppler redshift model. Explicitly, there is no horizon problem, or flatness problem. Implicitly, there is no galaxy problem, monopole problem, antimatter problem, entropy problem, age problem or singularity problem.

Whereas the Doppler interpretation model is governed by Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, the cosmological redshift zgrav is entirely based on Einstein’s general principle of relativity in a non-Euclidean continuum with a very specific value for the cosmological constant.

This possibility needs to be explored further. The mathematics of mass-energy density vs. redshift as a metric function of the manifold needs to be calculated. A solution for missing mass too needs to be found for the zgrav interpretation.

Note that the zgrav effect requires a loss of energy independent of the wavelength, in accord with observations showing wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum. This is the only interpretation besides the Doppler effect that has energy loss with such a constant fractional wavelength shift. Certainly there are intrinsic motion shifts and intrinsic gravitational shifts in the mix.

So this interpretation is not pitted against Halton Arp’s discoveries of discordant redshifts.

The deviation from linearity observed in the spectrum of distant supernovae Type Ia is evidence of hyperbolic curvature (not accelerated expansion). With a Doppler interpretation, distant supernovae and their host galaxies appear to be receding slower than permitted by Hubble’s Law. Unexpected dimness of early supernovae gives the impression they are further away than their redshifts indicate, altering the predicted structure of the cosmos. The large shells of radiation and material emitted by distant supernovae appear to have a greater area than they would in a topologically flat space, making the source look very faint.

What we have is general relativistic spacetime dilation increasing with distance from the observer.

One of these interpretations is likely wrong (unless both effects are superimposed). The choice today cannot be made with certainty. More investigation into the relativistic possibility is required before a decision can be made. My personal choice, though possibly premature, and perhaps biased, is in favor of the curvature approach, for the reasons mentioned above (the problems of modern cosmology are simply not there), and because it is founded on a theory (general relativity) that has passed every test (except for the gravitational wave prediction), rather than on two classical theories (Newton’s, or special relativity) that are known to be limited or special cases of the general theory. GR should be used in global considerations where distances are large, light speed is great and mass-energy density of huge portions of space is large.

ColdCreation

[questor]

coldcreation, i would like to find a site which could explain the basic components of the universe down to the smallest particle of energy or matter
and such things as gravity and life itself. perhaps you have the answer as to what a thought is or the force that gives life to animate beings. as my name implies, i am looking for answers and perhaps you are not interested in these questions.

[coldcreation]

Ok questor then you're in the right place. You mentioned the G-word so often you sounded like Hawking. You could have been preaching on Radio Vatican it would have fit in perfectly. Do you have any solutions for your existential queries? Or do you seek answers?

[questor]

C.C.- thanks for hearing me. i am not religious in the '' G '' sense of the word or as is espoused by the world's religions. however, in observing the way things work, it defies common sense that there is no creating force that put the cosmos in motion and controls it by forces that we only dimly understand. i do not see this as a caring or compassionate force, but rather as the ''bottom line'' of what was needed to create what we have. this force is present as gravity, energy, propulsion, and information, plus other components dimly perceived. the question then becomes- does it take a sentient force to create the cosmos, or is all that we see a result of non-creation. did the information stored in genetic matter occur with no sentient planning? does the fine balance of orbiting planets occur by chance? how do they propel themselves through their orbits with no external force and without slowing down? is the presence of math just a happenstance or is there thought behind it? what is thought? does it have mass, polarity, velocity or any ingredient we can measure it by? the superstring theory speaks of other dimensions. we cannot see them or understand them ( if they actually exist ) so was there any sentient planning here or does
all this exist because of non-creation?