J.B.S. Haldane
I believe there is a slow oscillation of nature that is presently unrecognized. The scale of time is immense and the geometry involves vast regions of space. In this paper, I hope to explain why I think there is a relationship between space-time and matter, how that affects our idea of the nature of the universe, and suggest the predictions these conclusions make and ways that this might be tested. While I am presenting the theory in this section, the reason and need for the theory has been covered in “The Incredible Shrinking Big Bang”
.
The Hypothesis (in a very tiny nutshell)
Matter is a byproduct of the expansion of the universe that is ongoing. Matter is therefore being added to the universe.
An Explanation (and elaboration)
One implication of this hypothesis is that the universe is a process, not an event. It did not begin with a bang only to end in a whimper of heat death. It is self-sustaining.
It is known, for example, from observations dating to Hubble that the universe is expanding. This expansion is not occurring universally, but is rather occurring in areas of space that are relatively devoid of matter. Our own planet, solar system, galaxy and local group are not expanding, and neither are any other galaxies or galactic clusters. We cannot experience or investigate this expansion directly, but we can deduce it from the movement of galaxies and groups of galaxies visible from earth (by virtue of their red shift).
In some of those areas that would otherwise be devoid of matter, there are large nebulae, and within some of these nebulae are stars that have been newly formed. There have been several theories that seek to explain why these nebulae are in those remote locations ranging from leftover gases from the Big Bang that (for unknown reasons) did not form galaxies to spontaneous aggregation of tiny amounts of existing hydrogen gas.
I suggest, instead, that the expansion of space in these areas leads to the formation of new matter in the form of hydrogen gas; that there is energy from expansion that is converted into matter. [Dark Energy = mc2?] I could speculate about how this transformation occurs and why matter instead of antimatter is produced, but the question of whether this occurring or not does not depend on how it might be occurring. (But if you’re curious, there are several ideas about how mass came into being. I just think it happened more than once.)
I further suggest that the production of sufficient mass then inhibits the expansion of space in that area in the same way that fully formed galaxies inhibit the expansion of space. There is, then, a feedback loop that squashes unchecked expansion, but does not eliminate expansion from surrounding areas.
When a threshold is reached, the gas begins to collapse on itself and the result is the formation of new stars and, ultimately, a new galaxy. [If a galaxy is a “gravity well” then perhaps the expansion is a “gravity hill” and when that hill reaches a certain “altitude” matter is created that flattens the hill.]
That, in a nutshell, would produce a universe that resembles the one that we see. It explains why galaxies are relatively uniformly distributed, why their size is relatively uniform (or at least as uniform as the stars), why there are galaxies as far as we are able to detect, and why there is no expansion in areas that have large amounts of matter.
The Evidence
There is no single piece of evidence that conclusively proves that matter is being formed in intergalactic space. Rather, the nature of matter in the visible universe provides a picture that is consistent with a process that creates matter that is transformed into galaxies.
The distribution of the galaxies throughout the universe suggests an orderly process. Moreover, it flatly contradicts the expectations of a universe that is expanding with a fixed amount of mass. Assuming a period of galaxy formation where the vast majority of galaxies were formed within 3 billion years of the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe would “push” them further and further apart, thus reducing the density of the galaxies over time. When you look into the distance (and into the past), you see, however, that the density of galaxies at 4 billion years ago is the same as it is today, and the distribution of galaxies 8-10 billion years ago is also the same as it is today. The distribution of galaxies is not only consistent throughout the universe, but also throughout the supposed duration of the universe. The drop off at 14 billion light-years coincidentally corresponds to the current limits of our instruments to resolve galaxies.
The relative uniformity of the sizes of the galaxies suggests a consistent process rather than a haphazard process where relatively uniform masses of hydrogen gas formed multiple discrete galaxies.
The distribution of new and old galaxies both near and far and the evidence for currently forming galaxies throughout the visible universe suggests an ongoing process.
The existence of nebulae in various stages of evolution from gaseous clouds to star clusters to “new” galaxies suggests a continuously evolving process.
Predictions
The hypothesis is falsifiable. A number of predictions can be derived from this model, many of which can be tested against observations although there is no means of experimentally generating matter from expansion on earth since we are engulfed in a gravitation field that would inhibit expansion. Also, new research is being performed that should reveal information that is not predicted by the Big Bang Theory.
If the ages of galaxies can be determined, we should expect that there will be newer galaxies distributed among older galaxies. There is, therefore, not a part of the universe that is new and a part that is old despite the vast distances or even passage of billions of years.
The galaxies at the periphery of our visible universe, when they can be clearly seen and accurately counted, should demonstrate the same properties as galaxies in our vicinity regardless of their distance. At present, we view most of those galaxies through gravitational lenses, and we are using instruments that preferentially identify bright “blue” galaxies. There are, however, “new” galaxies nearby as this paper demonstrates (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/media/galex-122104/visuals.html), and there are “old” galaxies in the periphery of the visible universe as this paper shows (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-04x.html).
The density of galaxies should be more or less uniform throughout the universe across both time and space. There should not be enormous gaps of empty space (or there should be a large nebula inside of such a gap). Neither should there be greater density of galaxies in the distant past (e.g. 8-10 billion years ago compared with 0-2 billion years ago) as predicted by an expanding universe with a fixed amount of mass. The density of galaxies should be, and is, uniform over distance and time.
The universe should have no center and no “periphery” or limit. There are limits to what we can see, but not what is actually there. In 1975, the furthest galaxy visible was 8 billion light years away. The Hubble Telescope can just barely resolve galaxies at 14 billion light years. The James Webb telescope should have better resolution, and it should show that galaxies at that distance are like those throughout the universe, and we should also see galaxies further away – far enough away to date them to “before the Big Bang.”
Careful examination of the nebulae may reveal whether those galaxies are forming de novo or as a result of persistence or accumulation of preexisting material.
If what I have described is happening, then this would radically transform our ideas of the universe as much as the discovery of evolution altered our views of Adam and Eve. The earth is older than 6,000 years, and the universe is older than 13.7 billion years.
Much older.
I reiterate: The universe, as I see it, is a process, not an event. As long as there has been empty space, it has been expanding, and as long as there has been expansion, there has been matter.
Potential research
1. Given the known rate of expansion of intergalactic space, there should be a certain density of intergalactic nebulae, star clusters and new galaxies sufficient to maintain the current density of galaxies. Insufficient numbers of nebulae (or evolving galaxies), assuming that an accurate count can be obtained, would refute the hypothesis.
2. Likewise, plotting the density of galaxies through distance (time) should reveal that the density has not decreased over the past 10 billion years thus refuting the hypothesis that the universe is expanding with a fixed amount of mass. If the universe is expanding while maintaining the same density of matter, then new matter is being added to the universe.
3. Assuming that the point of maximum expansion of intergalactic space would be at or near the geometric center of the nearest surrounding galaxies, and that this would be the most likely site to have mass generated by this expansion, we should expect that the nebulae would form in those areas.
4. More detailed views of distant galaxies should reveal that distant galaxies share the same properties as nearby galaxies despite the vast distances and the time elapsed. The density should be the same, the sizes and shapes should be the same, and the relative ages should be the same. Current observations of distant galaxies have revealed a preponderance of misshapen “young” galaxies, but these have been revealed largely through gravitational lensing and “young” galaxies are bluer and brighter than older galaxies which would make them easier to detect (detection bias). These galaxies at the limits of detection, no matter how far away, will always have poorer resolution and detection bias based on their characteristics.
5. Views beyond current levels of visibility (and detection) should show that there is no “edge” to the universe, and no real end to the galaxies regardless of the distance (although the Hubble volume will prevent detection of anything beyond that radius).
Caveats
Nebula is a nebulous term. Many phenomena in the universe have the name nebula, but this paper does not include all of them, or even most of them. Only intergalactic nebulae are included. The existence of “nebulae” that are not intergalactic or whose etiology is explosive (or any other phenomenon that is well known) does not negate the hypothesis of the present paper.
The terms “uniform”, “orderly” and “consistent” do not imply identical. Just as there are variations in the size of planets and stars despite their presumed common method of formation, there is variation in the size, shape and distribution of galaxies. The “lumpiness” of the universe does not negate the hypothesis presented in this paper.
Presuppositions regarding the nature of the production of mass should be avoided. It may or may not create an electromagnetic signature. The time involved may be lengthy or not. The process does not exclude the occurrence of other phenomena such as novae or even supernovae. All intergalactic nebulae may not lead to the formation of new galaxies.
Implications
According to this model, the universe has no center, and it has no edge. It had no beginning in time, and it has no end. It is ever changing, but always the same.
The amount of matter in the universe is not fixed, and it is not finite.
If expanding space leads to the production of intergalactic nebulae that develop into galaxies, then not only are galaxies of different “ages”, but so are the protons that compose the hydrogen molecules that lead to the formation of galaxies.
Given this evolving picture, we would expect that young galaxies would be more or less evenly distributed among older galaxies throughout the visible universe. This seems to be the case with “new” galaxies nearby (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/media/galex-122104/visuals.html), and there are “old” galaxies in the periphery of the visible universe (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-04x.html).
Depending on the time scale involved in the production of intergalactic gaseous clouds and the subsequent evolution through gravitational collapse, we should expect a spectrum of different stages of galactic development of nebulae in intergalactic space.
The Big Bang theory developed from the observation that the universe is expanding. Hubble (and Georges Lemaître) imagined reversing the expansion, and the inevitable conclusion was that all of the mass in the universe was in the same location at one time. Two implicit assumptions are that 1) the mass in the universe is finite and 2) all of the mass in the universe was present from the very beginning. In the present model, reversing the expansion would reveal galaxies disappearing in a puff of gas as the galaxies closed the gaps, while the density of galaxies remains the same (as it evidently is while expanding). There would be no end to the galaxies streaming in from the “edge” of the visible universe, and there would never be any aggregation of mass at any “central” location – because there is no center.
On a more speculative note, if the rate of expansion is proportional to the volume of space, then the rate of expansion would appear to be accelerating. Assuming a relatively short interval between generation of matter and reduction of the rate of expansion in that area, the net effect would be to suggest that the overall rate of expansion is accelerating while still maintaining a stable average velocity and keeping a consistent density of matter.
Objections
The first objection is that “matter and energy cannot be created.” From the Law of Conservation of Energy (and matter), the amount of energy (and mass) in a closed system is constant. The universe, however, may be the ultimate open system. Also, whatever theory is considered, matter is said to have “appeared” or been created in the universe. The only questions are how, where, and when. Additionally, invoking the First Law of Thermodynamics may not be appropriate since there has been energy demonstrated in intergalactic space. Open or closed system, this energy is available for the production of matter (“Dark Energy = mc2?).
The second objection is that there is no evidence for matter appearing in intergalactic space. The time scale for direct observation of this phenomenon would be immense, however, and consume many human lifetimes. Not to mention that no one would know exactly what to look for or may not recognize it for what it is.
The third objection is that there isn’t enough matter in intergalactic space to result in enough galaxies to maintain the density of galaxies (or the rate of galaxy formation is insufficient to maintain that density). While we know of many intergalactic nebulae, the numbers and distribution are difficult to determine, particularly if they are small or not emitting or reflecting any electromagnetic signals.
The fourth objection is that the cosmic microwave background radiation is best explained by the Big Bang, and the current hypothesis does not account for this phenomenon. An explanation for this phenomenon, imbedded in the data and generally accepted, is “cosmic inflation”, and the present hypothesis is entirely dependent on the concept of cosmic inflation. If, in fact, the radiation is coming from space generally (and not space outside of the visible universe), then this would support the theory that the radiation is dependent on cosmic inflation wherever it is occurring, rather than a distant location that implies some event in the distant past. Cosmic Background Radiation is not consistent with a steady state universe, but it is consistent with an inflationary universe – even without a Big Bang.
The fifth objection is that the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric which is derived from current theory and relies on the theory of general relativity demonstrates that galaxies that appear to have uniform density over time and distance were actually closer together in the past, but appear uniform because of the curvature of space. This follows the GIGO principle. If you assume the big bang, and the results do not conform to expectations, then a complicated mathematical solution does not make things closer together that are not closer together. The FLRW metric is a fudge factor, an absurd fiction, and it is demonstrably false. (see the Incredible Shrinking Big Bang)
Other objections based on how well established the current theory is, how well supported it is in the literature, how long the theory has been accepted, the acceptance by the most brilliant minds of our time, and the detail with which this theory has been scrutinized should be respected, but only insofar as these objections remain true to the data.
Conclusion
Originally, the Big Bang was thought to have imparted momentum to the gases that eventually made the galaxies. This part of the theory has now been proven wrong, and the current theory employs cosmic inflation as the mechanism for expansion of the universe. A Big Bang is not necessary for cosmic inflation, but because of the concept of the “fixity of mass” (First Law of Thermodynamics), there has not been any adequate alternative explanation for the source of the mass.
Also, the original theory of the dissemination of particles with mass has been abandoned because, even with cosmic inflation, the idea of these particles spreading at speeds that vastly exceeded the speed of light was untenable. “Pre-mass”, or Plasma, has replaced the idea of particles with mass.
But after the formation of galaxies, the inflation was supposed to have separated the galaxies gradually. We now have a rough history of the universe for the past 12-13 billion years, and it is evident that there has been no apparent separation. The galaxies were not closer together 10 billion years ago than they are now.
Looking at the way the universe is and accepting that it is not the way that would be predicted by the Big Bang is the first step towards a new paradigm. The only change I am suggesting is that the plasma be replaced with an ongoing process of mass formation that fills in the gaps left by cosmic inflation. The intergalactic nebulae, star clusters and new galaxies that are not predicted by the Big Bang theory comprise the evidence before our eyes that the universe is evolving, unfolding in a slow and regular way, and there is no reason to think that this has been happening for any specific period of time.
Some astrophysicists have opined that there will be no galaxies beyond (or “before”) the fuzzy glow-worms detected at the limits of the resolution of the Hubble telescope. If the James Webb telescope, to be launched in 2014, fulfills expectations and allows us to see clearly at 14 billion light-years and some distance beyond, the hubris of calculating the total mass of the universe will become laughable, and there will be “modifications” (which I fear will be rationalizations) of the Big Bang theory when, as I see it, we need a new theory that doesn’t assume that the mass in the universe is either fixed or finite.
If, as has been speculated, we can see all that there is to see, and the universe truly has a diameter of 94 billion light-years (extrapolating the expansion of those distant galaxies to their current position) then, at the intersection of all of the diameters lies – Earth. Are you surprised to find that the Earth is the center of the universe? I see this as a clue that something is wrong with the assumptions unless one admits that the “observable universe” is a tiny fraction, perhaps 1/infinity, of the total universe.
To me, the idea of “many universes” is metaphorical. There is, instead, one universe but we will not be able to see beyond the Hubble Volume. To those galaxies in other “Hubble Volumes”, they may as well be in another universe since they will never be able to have any information regarding this Hubble Volume (because information implies electromagnetic energy that can never reach them as the galaxies there are receding faster than the speed of light). But really, around every galaxy, star and planet is a Hubble volume – its own universe (from the Copernican Principle). All is One. The rest is a matter of perception.
