Essay Abstract

In ancient times people tried to explain phenomena, which they did not understand, by the action of gods. In a similar way modern cosmology tries to explain observations by new physical principles, which can neither be proved nor falsified, like the big bang singularity or the existence of dark energy. But alternatives are possible within the well tested scope of general relativity, if we abandon the idea that a global time scale exists and that consequently space should be expanding. Maybe we are closer to the limit of completely understanding the physics of the universe than most people think.

Author Bio

Ernst Fischer, born 1938 in Stolberg, Germany. I have studied physics with the main topic plasma physics. My main professional activity was research on light sources. But in my spare time I was active also in astrophysics and have published some papers in this field.

Download Essay PDF File

2 months later
  • [deleted]

Dear Ernst,

What a great paper! It is very clearly written and right on the spot. You just stopped short of writing Unified Field Equations. I think the last questions you consider (about dark matter) could be solved by considering that photons have an actual mass.

Good luck with the contest,

Steven Oostdijk

14 days later
  • [deleted]

Dear Ernst,

i was surprised to see your essay posted on 20 August to have remained unobserved/ commented thus far, one exception. i decided to go through the same and found your appraoch at variance with today's popular Physics/ Cosmology. Just because you have questioned some established concepts, yet you did not introduce new ones and simply worked your way in an alternate approach. Yes, it is difficult to make observations in cosmology that are reliable and precise. However, some isolated measurements have been attempted on the constants like c, e/m from light signals coming from distant objects around 12 billion years away. It is seen that c had a larger value than accepted presently. Similar is the story about the ratio e/m. In fact if we accept the Big bang singularity for the universe initiation, the conditions close to those times are bound to be too turbulent and extraordinary to match the times in which we have developed and tested our present day Physics.

i am by training and experience a low energy nuclear physics experimentalist and have never had any formal learning in Cosmology or Astrophyics. After retirement from University service , i started on my own to try to look at cosmolgy, a natural interest. i find that in fact it holds the secrets starting from Particle Physics upwards to nuclear/atomic and solid state physics. Even the modern field of nanostructure materials may have had a place in the evolution of the universe somewhere that we may have missed!

In my essay on this forum this year as also last year ( different title ), i have given vent to my opinions based on such self- studies of available literature. i agree that alternate avenues exist to understand both Physics and Cosmology and i hold Cosmology to provide all the hints for such future developmants in Physics. I for one feel your essay has a high degree of originality and innovation that may not be easily appreciated in view of 'established' concepts and human prejudice towards biases we develop during our training/education.

  • [deleted]

Dear Steven,

Thank you for your comments. First I must apologize for not having reacted to your post earlier, but I was absent from home for some time. I hope that my essay will give some impulse to the astrophysics community to look for possible alternatives to the currently favoured concordance model.

I do not agree to your suggestion that the mass of photons might be a candidate for dark matter. If photons had mass in addition to their energy equivalent, this would long have been recognised by experiments. To my opinion, of all known constituents of the universe fully ionised matter is the most probable candidate for dark matter. Though it is not completely dark, the emission of bremsstrahlung of a very diluted and unstructured plasma is extremely weak. The observed x-ray background radiation, if attributed to such a plasma, would be sufficient to close the universe.

A more detailed discussion of this topic you can find in my paper 'An Equilibrium Balance of the Universe' (arXiv:0708.3577 ), where I have tried to show up ways to an alternative cosistent model of the universe.

Best regards,

Ernst Fischer

Dear Professor Narendra,

Indeed the ideas proposed in my essay do not propose any new physical effect to understand the physics of the universe. But it just this fact, which I wanted to show: that it is likely that no new physics at all is needed for a complete understanding of the universe, if we only give up the idea of an unidirectional evolution and replace it by a model of fluctuations around a global equilibrium. All these questions about constancy of c or e/m become superfluous as well as those of a breakdown of physical laws close to a singularity.

Unfortunately big bang cosmology has reached such a status of religious truth by now that anyone, who dares to question the basics of this model, will be punished by continuous disregard.

Also in your essay in this contest you repeat the basics of the concordance model apparently without any doubts on their truth. But I hope that my essay will contribute at least to the result that some people begin to think about basically different alternatives, which allow a consistent description of the universe.

Best regards,

Ernst Fischer

  • [deleted]

Dear Ernst,

i admire yoour optimsm in solving the myteries of the universe, without using any new ideas in Physics. Just by ignoring the Big bang start and say taking its existence to be continuous and accompanied by some fluctautions about a constant base, is what you envisage. However, what about the dark matter/enrgy and the explanation for black holes, as per our ideas?i will e obliged if you let me know about the Concordance model, as i have not studied cosmology professionally. i will appreciate much your elucidations.

Dear NN,

Yes, I am optimistic that we can solve the mysteries of the universe, or better to say, find out the rules, how the interplay between its constituents works. It is not just ignoring a Big Bang, what I propose, but what I want to show is that all the observational facts, which have been adopted in favour of the Concordance model, like red shift, microwave background and the chemical element composition can be understood without introducing new and unprovable physics and without any singular states of matter.

In my essay I have demonstrated that red shift is a natural consequence of curvature of space (curvature replaces the gravitational potential in a purely geometrical description of gravity like General Relativity), if motion of photons or matter particles is described in the commoving reference frame, where the time variable is the local proper time. In a locally fixed reference frame potential energy has to be introduced as an extra term with negative pressure in the energy balance. (It is not some energy of the gravitational field, but the potential energy of matter in a gravitational field just as in Newtonian theory)

Due to the negative pressure the contribution of potential energy to the gravitational action is repulsive. In most cases this contribution is negligible compared to the energy equivalence of matter itself. Only in extreme matter concentrations, as we find them in the collapse of stars or complete galaxies the repulsive action of potential energy prevents the final contraction into a singularity. Thus the final state of collapse, which we denote as a black hole, is an equilibrium configuration close to the Schwarzschild radius. The only configuration, in which the gravitation of matter is balanced by its own potential energy at moderate density, is the universe as a whole.

Once the basic elements of such an equilibrium model have been accepted, it is easy to understand observations like the microwave background or the chemical element composition. As I have mentioned in my essay, all emitted photons are redshifted on their journey through space until they are finally thermalised by quantum interference in a background radiation pool, when the mean distance of photons is in the order of the wave length. The chemical element composition can be understood as well, if we regard the collapsed systems, the black holes, as a source of fresh, extremely hot matter, which is released into space, cools of by gravitational energy loss and later by electromagnetic radiation to form new galaxies and stars. The equilibrium configuration at the Schwarzschild limit is very fragile, so that perturbations lead to the emission of hot matter jets from the poles of spinning black holes. The fact that this new matter is emitted at extremely high temperature and needs much time to cool sufficiently to form new galaxies, explains, why the matter content of these galaxies is only a small fraction of the total matter. Most of it is too hot to condense into new structures. It acts like dark energy or dark matter in the balance of the universe, but it is not entirely black. It emits bremsstrahlung as x-rays. The observed diffuse x-ray background is just in the order of magnitude to be explained by emission from a fully ionised plasma close to the critical density.

A more detailed discussion of these topics you can find in a paper, which I have written two years ago. You will find it in the arXiv (An Equilibrium Balance of the Universe, arXiv:0708.3577)

Ernst Fischer

  • [deleted]

Hi Ernst. In your essay, you said: "But redshift is not the result of a mysterious new effect driving expansion. It is the natural consequence of the Lorentz invariance of gravitational interaction."

How exactly do you view this in keeping with the following?

Note the transparent space/sky around the larger and red [setting] sun.

(Telescopic/astronomical observations make the objects larger, or they could not be seen at all.) Importantly, isn't the increased transparency/invisibility of space, in relation to the blackness of night/outer space, the requirement of seeing farther?

Of huge importnce, isn't the increasing transparency/invisibility of space

the reason for the redshift?

My essay is the fourth from the top. I would appreciate it if you would rate it and comment on it as well. Thanks. Frank

Write a Reply...