Does the CMB exist?

icon-mk-telescope
One problem with science, or at least science developed by human beings, is that once a theory becomes established, it's very difficult to shift. Scientists who helped established this new theory move into senior positions. Once they're there, the last thing they want to do is openly accept that the theory they helped develop is wrong, even if its flaws become clear. If they did that, then the very reason for them being in their senior positions would be null and void, which would jeopardise their position, reputation, career and very attractive salary with non-contributory pension. Not surprisingly, many of them therefore fight tooth-and-nail to resist any ground-breaking changes in their field. This is why Max Planck, the Nobel-Prize-Winning physicist and father of quantum physics, said:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents, and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'


Entrenched views and positions aren't the only problems facing anyone trying to overhaul a scientific field. If a field is fundamentally wrong, then it is likely that some key experiments, ones that support its main theories, were originally wrong too. Somehow, someone made a mistake with the measurements, or interpreted the measurements incorrectly. According to the principles of science, if those experiments were wrong, then scientists in that field would soon discover their error when they carried out those experiments again. This is because any experiment should be reproducible, as in anyone should be able to do that experiment and get the same result.

What scientists don't often mention to everyone else is that many experiments aren't actually repeated, once they've been published in a scientific journal. Firstly, it costs money and repeating an experiments doesn't help anyone's career. Secondly, if an established theory is based on that experiment producing certain results, then no one wants to do the experiment again because everyone 'knows' what its result will be. Even if someone actually does the experiment, and then discovers that its result doesn't fit the established theory, then they often think they just made a mistake, or back off from reporting it because they're scared of looking foolish.

It's therefore easy for scientists to fall into a disastrous trap. If a key experiment was poorly carried out, or if the interpretations of its measurements were wrong, but its results still lead to a theory becoming established, then an entire field in science can go in the wrong direction and not get back on the right path… which leads us to the title of this article, 'does the CMB exist?' I've explained in my book, The Reality Problem, that there are serious problems with the Big Bang Theory. These problems are so large that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct and serious mistakes have been made in putting it together.

CMB-horn-antenna
There are two key observations that underpin the Big Bang Theory. Firstly, when we look at other galaxies, they are all red-shifted, which seems to indicate that they are all moving away from each other, This was discovered by Edwin Hubble (although he didn't actually discover it, Vesto Slipher did, but that's another story). Secondly, Penzias and Wilson discovered that our entire universe has a temperature of three Kelvin; this is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB. If we put these two observations together, it would seem that our universe once started at one point and was full of heat and energy. Since that creation moment, our universe has expanded and cooled.

But the interpretation of the data from these two experiments could be wrong. Firstly, all galaxies may be redshifted, from our point of view, because the wavelength of the light has been elongated as it travelled such huge distances to reach us. The further it travels, the more it elongates, thus explaining the red-shift effect. Secondly, the 3K temperature that Penzias and Wilson detected may not be emitted by our entire universe, but simply from our planet. This is a perfectly reasonable idea, since our planet radiates heat. The way to check this out would be to measure the radiation in different places on our planet and especially in space. This is why the following video is very interesting:



Pierre-Marie Robitaille PhD, who makes these videos, is a skilled engineer. He is also clearly a clever guy. 'In 1998, he led the design and assembly of the world’s first Ultra High Field MRI System'. The fact that he isn't a senior astrophysicist doesn't necessarily count against him; neither was Einstein. Is he correct? I don't know for sure but I think it's extremely important that different views and theories are put forward. At the moment, organisations like CSICOP (now CSI) and RationalWiki are effectively witch-hunting any non-orthodox views, rather than explaining those theories' flaws, which is non-scientific. They'd be far more beneficial to society if they instead openly discussed the huge flaws in orthodox science, and what should be done about them.

Dr Robitaille has made many videos on topics in astrophysics. I also enjoyed the following video on the so-called 'first picture of a black hole', which filled the media for a few days. His explanation of how the physicists involved put together their picture from actual measurements is an eye-opener.



Personally, I think Dr Paul LaViolette's sub-quantum kinetics theory is a more solid explanation of the universe's creation and development than the official physics theories. Unfortunately, I think the only way we're going to be able to completely re-assess civilian physics on Earth, and find out which theory is correct, is after a major war, or the collapse of civilisation; the current, orthodox civilian views are just too entrenched. Dr LaViolette also has this view. By comparison, I think the USA military classified physics theories are probably spot-on. When you have a $500 billion dollar annual budget and the ability to hide anything you create, and the ability to classify anything any civilian creates, and you also work entirely on the basis of practical benefits, then you're bound to get ahead. It would be fascinating to get a glimpse of what the US military has created, and how their physicists understand the universe. Here's hoping…

LaViolette 'Subquantum Kinetics' book review

icon-mk-telescope
As promised in an earlier post, I've read Dr Paul LaViolette's book 'Subquantum Kinetics'. As mentioned earlier, I was a little hesitant at buying and reading the book, as it looked to be a demanding read. Fortunately, I persevered and I found it to be an excellent read. There is some challenging physics, at least to someone who only studied it at sixth-form level (or high school level) but it is very readable, clear and extremely interesting.

subquantum-kinetics
LavIolette explains that the problems in quantum physics, relativity and cosmology can be solved by bringing back the idea of an ether, but rather than an inert ether, a simply 'medium' in which light and forces can propagate, Laviolette postulates an active ether. This ether produces fundamental particles through the flow and movement of smaller-scale particles that do not manifest themselves in physical reality, that he calls 'etherons'. The creation of fundamental particles then becomes a process more like chemistry, in the sense that a self-sustaining pattern of particle existence is created similar to the Brusselator process, and these particles' shape is governed by Turing Waves. Read More...

Someone made the cake

icon-mk-telescope
This week, I though it would be good to blog about cosmology. I've been reading week's New Scientist magazine for years. In its pages, on a regular basis, there'll be an article on how physicists are trying to come up with a solution to solve thorny problems regarding the Big Bang; the beginning of our universe. Unfortunately, this has been going on for literally decades with no sign of any significant progress. A big part of the problem is that there are several glaring problems with the current, Materialist view of the universe's birth. They are 'Boltzmann's Well Ordered Universe Problem', 'The Baryon Asymmetry Problem' and the 'Fine-Tuning Problem.' These problems are clear, straightforward and simply refuse to go away. What's interesting is that they can all be solved if one adopts a particular Dualist view of the universe. In my new non-fiction book, 'How science shows that almost everything important we've been told is wrong', I've explained how that works and I thought it would be fun to post it here:

Scrambled Egg

At the beginning of the twentieth century, several astronomers noticed something odd about galaxies. When they studied the motion of remote galaxies by measuring their red shift (similar to a Doppler Shift), it seemed that all the galaxies were all moving away from us and each other. There seemed to be only one conclusion, that the universe itself was expanding. It was as if the universe was like the surface of a balloon and everything on that surface was moving away from everything else as the universe ‘inflated’.

lemaitre-180px
This startling fact did match a consequence of Albert Einstein’s General Relativity, which predicted that the whole universe should be expanding. In 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic Priest and astrophysicist, took note of this new information. He concluded that if everything in the universe is expanding away from every other thing in the universe, then the universe must have originally started from a single point. Lemaître called this single point from which the universe sprang the ‘Primeval Atom’ or ‘Cosmic Egg’. These names are evocative and apt, but they aren’t half as much fun as ‘Big Bang’. This description was coined by astronomer Fred Hoyle during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast. Hoyle didn’t believe the universe was expanding and his choice of phrase, whether deliberate or not, wasn’t exactly complimentary or scientifically accurate. Since space and time also started at that first moment, nothing had any size, nor was there anything to explode into, thus making a ‘big bang’ impossible on all counts. Nevertheless, the phrase stuck. Read More...

Reality is Casablanca

cslewis_problemofpain
In this week’s Brainpickings - a web site dedicated to interesting articles about writers and writing - there is a very interesting article about C.S.Lewis. Lewis is the famous author of books such as ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’. He was both an author and a Christian philosopher. In the article, focussed on his book ‘The Problem of Pain’, Lewis poses a fundamental moral and spiritual problem:

The problem of pain, in its simplest form was the paradoxical idea that if we were to believe in a higher power, we would, on the one hand, have to believe that "God" wants all creatures to be happy and, being almighty, can make that wish manifest; on the other hand, we'd have to acknowledge that all creatures are not happy, which renders that god lacking in "either goodness, or power, or both."


It’s a tricky question. In a nutshell, it is: ‘If God’s full of love, why’s he put us here in a place full of suffering, misery and pain?’

There are lots of possible answers to this question but here's three popular ones:

  1. God is good and he wants suffering in the world for a good reason. Unfortunately, we can’t understand why because God purpose is beyond our limited understanding. In other words, we’re too stupid to understand why we have to suffer.
  2. We’re fundamentally bad; it's our own fault there’s suffering. We basically deserve what we're getting.
  3. God doesn’t exist and the universe is what it is because of physics. There's no Big Reason nothing to ponder. This is the materialist or atheist solution and is fully believed by such academic luminaries as Richard Dawkins.

Unfortunately, none of the above answers are particularly positive. In fact, they’re all pretty depressing, which doesn’t improve the lot of anyone who's already unhappy about ‘the problem of pain’ in the first place.

But there is another answer! Hooray! If the Influence Idea is correct, then we, as thinking minds, are separate to physical reality and influence physical reality in order to make Life happen, including the functioning of our own bodies. This is a scientific idea, grounded in fact and logic, so there's no need to actually believe anything in order to say, with confidence that God exists (a.k.a. Original Mind, Tao or Atum) and there's Life After Physical Death etc.

But if we don't originate in this physical reality and we can leave it, why are we all going through all the suffering that comes as part and parcel of living our lives? What's the point? An answer may lie in reading the reports of people who say they've temporarily stopped living their physical life and visited the AfterLife…

Heading-towards-omega
In previous centuries, there have been reports about this other realm from people that had temporarily died but then reawakened in their bodies (known as an NDE or Near Death Experience), but these were sketchy and anecdotal. Fortunately, thanks to modern technology and solid research, we have several recent, comprehensive studies to draw upon. I personally recommend the books ‘Heading towards Omega’ and ‘Consciousness Beyond Life’, which are both written by highly experienced doctors and academics.

conscious-beyond-life
In both books, many people who survived NDE events report what they experienced and the testimonies are highly consistent. Almost all the survivors report that the after-death realm is an absolutely wonderful place. They state that our physical lives, by comparison, are just awful, full of pain and constraints and suffering and problems. Physical life, according to the NDE subjects, is actually even worse than we think it is; it’s only the fact that we’ve forgotten how wonderful the inter-life realm is that makes Reality for us even remotely bearable. Crucially, the NDE survivors also add that we have all willingly decided to live our physical lives because we believed that the experience would benefit us.

Such an idea leads to a simple but highly meaningful question; ‘what should we do to improve ourselves?’ Most of us would agree that we want to become better people during our lives, to be more courageous, more compassionate, more charitable, but how would we go about it? If we were in Heaven, we could perhaps ask God to transform us into ultimately lovely people… but there’s a problem with that. If we did that, we wouldn’t have improved, we’d have just been changed into someone else by another’s hand. This is where living a physical life full of challenges and difficulties starts to make sense. By living such a challenging life and succeeding in it, we have really improved as people.

casablanca
In the classic film ‘Casablanca’, the hero Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart, faces all sorts of challenges and choices. Eventually, by the end of the movie, he becomes a better person. In the film’s climactic scene [plot spoiler], he surprises Elsa by telling her that she should leave with Victor Lazlo and not run away with him. He still loves her but he realises that she’ll only be truly happy if she gets on the plane with another man. If she doesn’t, she’ll regret it, maybe not today but soon and for the rest of her life. It’s a famous scene and a famous line and it’s meaningful; Rick has turned the corner, walked away from bitterness and anger. He has acted selflessly and improved the world.

But what if the film had been different? What if Rick had asked a Higher Power, five minutes in, to transform him into a wonderful human being? The net result would have been the same (freedom fighter escapes, woman is forgiven, man shows he cares) without a lot of talking, wearing of raincoats and singing of the Marseillaise. But such a transformation would have been rubbish, false, pointless. For Rick’s story to touch our heartstrings and stir our souls, he had to face challenges in that story. He had to resist the temptation of stealing Elsa away for himself. He had to face the option of wallowing in self-pity and bitterness, but instead rise above that and do the right thing and it was hard for him to do it; he had to reach down and pull himself into a good place. The challenges he faced were tough and we, the audience, didn’t know, until right at the end, which choice he would make but when he did make the right choices and become a better person, it meant everything to him and to us. It gets me every time. I practically blub when they sing the Marseillaise.

The same ise true of our own lives. Deep down, many of us want to become better people through our own experiences, our own choices and actions. Just as with Rick, we have to experience all sorts of challenges to be sure we are great people. A wise person would say that we don’t know how good we are until we are challenged; it is only when we’re challenged that we find out. We can’t just ‘talk the talk’, we have to ‘walk the walk’ to be sure.

This idea, that we are living physical lives to improve ourselves, has interesting consequences. For example, if Reality is a construction created by minds for personal improvement - a therapy environment - then the only things of real importance to us in Reality aren’t actually the physical things of reality at all - they’re just props. The only important thing in Reality is the state of our own minds. All extrinsic things like money, attractiveness, material goods etc are ultimately irrelevant and only of use if their presence helps us improve our minds. Anyone in Reality who is preoccupied with material things is akin to someone spending all their time playing a computer game because they're obsessed with amassing as many gold coins as possible. Such an attitude by game players often invites pity and ridicule but Reality is an artificial environment too, an immersive, affecting environment that we only temporarily experience.

It seems that Reality is the film 'Casablanca', only we don't know the ending. It is an immersive environment that we have all chosen to experience, from birth to death, and by doing this, by living our physical lives, we hope to rid ourselves of negative thoughts and negative reactions. Just as Rick had to face temptation, overcome bitterness and choose selflessness during the two hours of ‘Casablanca’, we are spending four-score-years-and-ten here because we want to achieve the same goals, only possibly with less raincoats…

p.s. Literally trying to live out 'Casablanca' is tempting too, but kind of dumb, but Woody Allen was very funny when he tried it in his film 'Play it again, Sam', which is definitely worth seeing.

Play_It_AgainQ_Sam_affiche