Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, a New
Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 4
How Will the Scientific Community React to Big Bang's Vast NonconservationofEnergy
Losses?
(arXiv:physics/0102095 28 Feb 2001) by Robert V. Gentry
Abstract
In 1936 Hubble expressed his concern about astronomical
redshifts and energy conservation: "Obviously since the product [energy ×
wavelength] remains constant, redshifts, by increasing wavelengths,
must reduce the energy in the quanta. Any plausible interpretation of redshifts
must account for the loss of energy." The scientific community rightly expects that bigbang cosmology
resolved this concern consistent with energy conservation. Surprisingly, this did not happen.
Instead, cosmologists exempted the big bang from energy conservation, but without saying how much was lost.
This paper shows that, since t = 1 second after the big bang, expansion redshifting of
CBR photons would have resulted in nonconservationofenergy losses
amounting to at least thirty million times the mass of the visible universe;
moreover, losses continue at the rate of about a galactic mass every
millennium. These results prove the big bang fails to match the physics of
the real universe, that its expansion redshift hypothesis is fatally
flawed, and hence that the big bang never possessed the qualifications
necessary for being classified as a modern scientific theory.
Disney has noted many uncertainties in bigbang cosmology [1],
but he did not question whether its basic postulates agree with known
conservation laws. This fourth paper does this, specifically focusing on
whether spacetime expansion is consistent with conservation of energy. Concerning
the relation between redshifts and photon energy, in 1936 Hubble wrote [2]:
"Obviously since the product [energy ×
wavelength
( = Planck's constant × c )] remains constant, redshifts, by
increasing wavelengths, must reduce the energy in the quanta. Any plausible interpretation of redshifts must
account for the loss of energy."
Just how this loss could be reconciled with energy conservation
did not become a major topic in physics in Hubble's time. Nor has it
since. Instead big bang's expansion factor a(t) has been ex
cathedra granted the extraordinary ability to cause energy to disappear from the
universe without providing an explanation as to how this happens. According to
Peebles [3]:
"The second confusing point is the nature of the energy
balance in the CBR. However, since the volume of the universe varies as a(t)^{3},
the net radiation energy in a closed universe decreases as
1 / a(t) as the universe expands. Where does the
lost energy go? . . . The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy
conservation is a good local concept, . . . . there is not a general global energy conservation
law in general relativity theory."
Harrison has likewise granted the same exemption. In his book,
in a section titled, "Where has the energy gone?," he
states [4]:
"Radiation, freely moving particles, and gases lose energy
in an expanding universe. Where does the energy go? We take it for granted that light is redshifted and
usually do not concern ourselves about where its energy has gone. . . .
"Science clings tenaciously to concepts of conservation,
the most fundamental of which is the conservationofenergy
principle. . . .
"The conservationofenergy principle serves us well in
all sciences except cosmology. . . . To the questions where the energy
goes in an expanding universe and where it comes from in a
collapsing universe the answer is
— nowhere, because in this one case energy is not conserved."
Other cosmologists [5] affirm similar views. The scientific
community believes all modern physical theories pass the test of energy
conservation. Yet here is proof that the big bang has been granted an
exemption. Almost certainly the scientific community would long ago have expressed
concern about this if cosmologists had publicized the magnitude of the
expansioninduced energy loss. Their failure to do so is why this topic has
remained in obscurity for so long. It appears my relatively recent reports
were the first to give that calculation [6,7], which is repeated here.
Consider in particular the nonconservationofenergy loss of CBR
photons as in theory they were expansionredshifted from 3000K at
decoupling to the present 2.7K. In theory, if a photon was emitted at a
wavelength λ_{e} at the time when the expansion factor was presumed to be some
unknown value ℜ_{e} — remember that the existence of this
factor has never been verified — then its wavelength λ
now at another unknown value, ℜ, is presumed to be given by the expression
λ = λ_{e}(ℜ / ℜ_{e}).
According to big bang theory the expansion ratio between the time of decoupling and the present
is about 10^{3}. In effect every photon is presumed to have had its wavelength
expanded by a factor of 10^{3} between that time and the present. On this basis
it is possible to compute the energy lost in expansion from the expression
relating a photon's wavelength with its energy, ε
= hc/λ,
where h and c are Planck's constant and the velocity of light, respectively. These
expressions allow the computation of the expansioninduced radiation energy loss for
the universe.
Assuming a universal volume, V_{univ}, of 15 billion ly
radius, the 2.7K CBR having about n
≃ 410 photonscm^{−3} with average
photon energy of about ε_{2.7}
= 10^{−15} erg [8,9], and the 3000K radiation with ε_{3000} = 1.13 ×
10^{−12} erg, and conservation of photon number , we compute the total CBR
expansioninduced, nonconservationofenergy loss as E_{exp} =
n ×
(ε_{3000
}− ε_{2.7})
× V_{univ}
= 5.7 × 10^{75} erg. This is about three times the
mass of the present universe, estimated to be about 10^{20} solar masses. For an initial fireball
temperature of 3 million K instead of 3000K, the total radiation energy loss
would be three thousand times the mass of the universe. Further, since in
theory photon number conservation extends back to at least a fireball
temperature of 30 billion K [8,9], in this case the theorized
nonconservationofenergy loss projects to be a gargantuan thirty million times the mass
of the visible universe. This same result also follows from Silk's discussion
[8], where he notes that the average energy of a single blackbody photon at t
= 1 second after the initial instant of the big bang is presumed to have
been 2.3 × 10^{6}
eV, whereas it is now only about 6 ×
10^{−4} eV.
Moreover, since expansion is theorized to be continuing, then
the predicted energy loss must also be continuing. In theory a single photon's
rate of energy loss is presumed to be ε^{⋅} =
−hcλ^{⋅} / λ,
from which it follows that the fractional rate of energy loss for a single photon is
ε^{⋅} / ε
= −(ℜ^{⋅} / ℜ) =
−H, where H is Hubble's constant. Thus the expected
present rate of nonconservationofenergy loss for the entire universe would be n ×
V_{univ} ×
ε_{2.7}
× H_{o} ≃10^{55} erg s^{−1} for H_{o} = 68 km
s^{−1} Mpc^{−1} = 2.2 ×
10^{−18} s. Thus, if spacetime expansion of CBR photons were a physical
reality, then it would presently be causing an amount of energy equal to 1/10
the mass of our Galaxy to somehow disappear from the universe about every
hundred years.
The above discussion dealt with radiation losses. In theory
expansion also causes free particle energy losses [10]. Each particle's
de Broglie wavelength, λ = h / p, where h is Planck's constant and p
is the particle's momentum, is also hypothesized to increase due to expansion. In theory
[10] free particles moving at nonrelativistic velocities will lose energy
in proportion to ℜ^{−2}, while relativistic particles will lose energy in
proportion to ℜ^{−1}. Robertson and Noonan acknowledge these losses to be such that
[11]:
"We are forced to conclude that two contradictory
principles hold: first, there is conservation of energy; and second, the
energy in the universe is not constant. . . . This nonconstancy of energy
should come as no shock. [Earlier] it was found that a
free particle which experiences no forces loses momentum in an
expanding universe."
Free particle energy loss with no applied forces is a huge
contradiction of basic physics, and simultaneous acceptance of energy
conservation and energy nonconservation is an unambiguous denial of the
fundamental axiom of logic excluding the simultaneous acceptance of a proposition
and its opposite. In their criticisms of the NRI [12], Carlip and Scranton
(C&S) offered plausibility arguments in their attempts to defend these
contradictions [13]:
"Gentry notes, correctly, that the electromagnetic energy
of the cosmic microwave background is not conserved during expansion: in a
volume expanding along with the universe, the radiation goes as
(1 + z)^{−1},
and the redshift represents a genuine loss of photon energy. But there
is nothing particularly 'cosmological' about this loss — a photon
rising in a static gravitational potential experiences a similar loss. In the laboratory, there
is nothing mysterious about this phenomenon, which simply reflects
the need to include gravitational potential energy in one's accounting.
Indeed, energy conservation can be used to derive the red shift." (At
this point in their report C&S cite Sect. 7.2 of ref. [10].)
There appears to be an inconsistency here. On one hand C&S
say expansion's (1 + z)^{−1} energy reduction factor proves that CBR
microwave energy ". . . is not conserved during expansion . . .",
and hence that the expansion ". . . redshift represents a genuine loss of energy."
This agrees with Peebles [3], Harrison [4], and Alpher and Herman [5]. On the other hand,
C&S then seem to reverse themselves and attempt to realign expansion
redshifts with energy conservation by associating them with gravitational
redshifts, which do conserve energy.
This contradiction invalidates any conclusions C&S may wish
to draw from this attempted realignment. Nevertheless they have raised
an issue of even greater relevance to the question of the existence of
spacetime expansion by claiming that the gravitational redshift is characterized by ". . .
a photon rising in a static gravitational potential experiences a similar
energy loss."
As noted above, C&S cite MTW's section 7.2, "The
energy of the photon must decrease just as that of a particle does as it climbs out of
a gravitational field. . ." to support their claim of photon energy loss
due to gravity.
Here we come to the crux of the issue regarding the reality of the spacetime expansion hypothesis. The central issue is whether
the FriedmannLemaitre solution of the field equations actually matches the relativistic characteristics of the universe we
inhabit.
If, as C&S [13] claim, photon energies do change as a photon
traverses a gravitational potential gradient, this would agree with MTW's description
of the relativistic effects of the expansion hypothesis —
namely, that expansion operates to cause wavelengths to increase while photons are inflight
but ceases to operate during emission and absorption [10]. If
confirmed, this would prove the universe is relativistically governed in
accord with the FriedmannLemaitre expanding spacetime solution of the field
equations, which is big bang's cornerstone postulate. So it has always
been of critical importance for cosmologists to ascertain whether general
relativistic effects cause photon wavelengths to change inflight as the expansion
hypothesis predicts. It has likewise always been of extreme importance for
physics in general to determine if this is true because what is at stake is
conservation of energy. If expansion is correct, then we live in a universe
characterized by inconceivably large nonconservationofenergy losses.
Nevertheless, in what may be one of the more significant
oversights in modern science, there appears to be no record where C&S
— or any other cosmologists, for that matter — ever sought to determine
whether photons actually do experience an inflight change in wavelength, or
energy, in passing through a gravitational potential gradient. In other words,
when C&S attempted to justify the existence of expansion redshifts by
associating them with the gravitational redshift, they were unable to offer any
firm
evidence supporting this association. Instead, they appealed to the
authority of MTW [10] as substantiating the idea that the gravitational redshift
is characterized as " . . . a photon rising in a static gravitational
potential experiences a similar energy loss" [13]. Part 5 of this series
reveals this is likewise the position of many other highly respected authorities in cosmology and
general relativity.
Despite this virtual unanimity, however, there is a great
fallacy in the long held views about how photons interact with gravity. As will
be seen in Part 5, the operation of the GPS proves that photons moving
through a gravitational potential gradient do not change energy. This
disproves any possibility of aligning expansion redshifts with energy
conservation. The failure of cosmologists and general relativity theorists to
recognize the cosmological implications of this experimental fact may now attract attention
because there is no middle ground; expansion and energy conservation are mutually exclusive. In the
final analysis, the fatal defect in
the expansion hypothesis cannot be hidden. Expansion redshifts must be fictitious
because they violate conservation of energy. And fictitious expansion
redshifts can only mean that the big bang itself is a fictitious theory.
Summary
Spacetime expansion not only violates conservation of energy, it
does so in a way that the radiation energy losses are so large as to be
incomprehensible. Part 5 in this series shows there is no way out of this
contradiction. There we discuss the experimental data which prove that photons
do not exchange energy with the field when passing through a gravitational
potential gradient. This fact excludes all possibility of attributing
expansion's energy loss to an energy exchange with the gravitational field in an
expanding cosmos.
By using the accepted standard by which all modern theories must
be tested, big bang cosmology fails when tested against consistency
with conservation of energy. By every principle of modern physics it is a falsified
theory. Thus, despite its wide acclaim, in reality it never possessed
the qualifications needed to be classified as a physical theory. Its nonconservationofenergy
losses are so vast — and its logical contradictions so great
— that they surely indicate there must be a fatal flaw in the expansion
hypothesis [14]. And if we look carefully, we expect that it should be found. The
next paper in this series examines this topic in detail.
References
[1] M. J. Disney, arXiv:astroph/0009020.
[2] Edwin Hubble, The Realm of the Nebulae (Yale
University Press, 1936) p. 121.
[3] P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1993), p. 139.
[4] E. R. Harrison, Cosmology, The Science of the Universe (Cambridge
University Press, 1981) pp. 275276.
[5] Robert A. Alpher and Robert Herman, Early work on 'big
bang' cosmology and the cosmic blackbody radiation, in Modern Cosmology
In Retrospect (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), p. 152.
[6] Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry, arXiv:grqc/9806061.
[7] Robert V. Gentry, arXiv:physics/9810051.
[8] Malcolm S. Longair, The Physics of Background Radiation,
in The Deep Universe, eds. B. Binggeli and R. Buser (Springer, Berlin,
1995), pp. 426432.
[9] Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (W. H. Freeman & Co.,
Revised ed. 1989) pp. 423425.
[10] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation,
(W. H. Freeman & Company, 1973) pp. 187.
[11] H. P. Robertson and Thomas Noonan, Relativity and
Cosmology (W. B. Sanders Company, 1968) pp. 355356.
[12] Robert V. Gentry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997)
2919; arXiv:astroph/9806280.
[13] Steven Carlip and Ryan Scranton, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14
(1999) 71; arXiv:astroph/9808021.
[14] Many thanks to Dave Gentry for useful discussions.
