In 1984 when I was a first year social science student at the age of eighteen Big Bang Theory was still a "relatively" new-kid-on-the-block and considered the only rational refutation of and refuge from the apparent banality of Steady State Theory doctrine, however, in recent decades further observation and experiment has cast doubt over the theory that has become central to the "Standard Model".
As time has gone by the use of Big Bang to justify increasingly disturbing, violent and resource consuming inquiry into the origins of the universe has grown and Big Bang has suffered a decrease in its popularity concomitant with the unease engendered by some of the practices and theories (esp. in economics), with which it is is most associated.
Accelerating Expansion
Quote; "Astronomers have known for decades that the universe is expanding. When they use telescopes to observe faraway galaxies, they see that these galaxies are moving away from Earth.
To astronomers, the wavelength of light a galaxy emits is longer the faster the galaxy is moving away from us. The farther away the galaxy is, the more its light has shifted toward the longer wavelengths on the red side of the spectrum – so the higher the “redshift.”
Because the speed of light is finite, fast, but not infinitely fast, seeing something far away means we’re looking at the thing how it looked in the past. With distant, high-redshift galaxies, we’re seeing the galaxy when the universe was in a younger state. So “high redshift” corresponds to the early times in the universe, and “low redshift” corresponds to the late times in the universe.
But as astronomers have studied these distances, they’ve learned that the universe is not just expanding – its rate of expansion is accelerating. And that expansion rate is even faster than the leading theory predicts it should be, leaving cosmologists like me puzzled and looking for new explanations.": https://theconversation.com/the-universe-is-expanding-faster-than-theory-predicts-physicists-are-searching-for-new-ideas-that-might-explain-the-mismatch-215414
Megaclusters
Quote; "In 2021, British PhD student Alexia Lopez was analysing the light coming from distant quasars when she made a startling discovery.
She detected a giant, almost symmetrical arc of galaxies 9.3 billion light years away in the constellation of Boötes the Herdsman. Spanning a massive 3.3 billion light years across, the structure is a whopping 1/15th the radius of the observable Universe. If we could see it from Earth, it would be the size of 35 full moons displayed across the sky.
Known as the Giant Arc, the structure throws into question some of the basic assumptions about the Universe. According to the standard model of cosmology – the theory on which our understanding of the Universe is based – matter should be more-or-less evenly distributed across space. When scientists view the Universe on very large scales there should be no noticeable irregularities; everything should look the same in every direction.
Yet the Giant Arc isn't the only example of its kind. In January 2024, Lopez revealed the discovery of another cosmic megastructure – a ring of distant galaxies with a diameter of 1.3 billion light years, which she has named the Big Ring. And these gargantuan structures are now forcing scientists to reassess their theory of how the Universe evolved. (Read more about the discovery of the Big Ring.)
Lopez was studying for her Masters degree at the University of Central Lancashire in the UK when her supervisor suggested using a new method to analyse large scale structures in the Universe. She used quasars – distant galaxies that emit an extraordinary amount of light – to look for signs of ionised magnesium, a sure sign of gas clouds surrounding a galaxy. When light passes through this ionised magnesium, certain frequencies are absorbed, leaving unique light 'signatures' astronomers can detect.": https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230302-the-giant-arcs-that-may-dwarf-everything-in-the-cosmos
Cosmological Principle
Quote; "In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is a prediction based on the idea that the universe is about the same in all places when viewed on a large scale.
Forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe. There should, therefore, be no observable irregularities in the large scale structure. The structure is the result of the evolution of the matter field after the Big Bang.": https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
There has always been a problem with the Cosmological Principle (as it is understood in this regard), that (very literally), suggests its origins.
Point Origin
If Big Bang were true all matter would be expanding relative to all other matter from a universal centre, a centre that it is equally obvious one would be unable to determine. One would be unable to determine it because of the basic problem Big Bang has with relativity..it isn't. Isn't what? Relative to anything.
When we express an expansion of something we always, always express it in terms of something it is compared to, however, the Big Bang is the exception.
In other words if the universe were the product of a Big Bang it must have expanded relative to the ("holy"), vessel it which its origins were contained. If so we cannot call the product of the Big Bang The Universe as, in order to be universal, it must contain all things. Thus the theory of the Holy Vessel was born? Well no not really for we end up with a very literal "chicken-and-egg" inquiry that continues ad infinitum and is, therefore, a truly irrational endeavour, modern physicists (although the scales are, I think, beginning to fall from some eyes), are also, therefore, engaged in the truly insane when they pour resources both our planet and species can ill afford to be consumed into the fires of ignorance*.
*Nb. Complex issues are often best approached by considering the resource base:
1. Does what one is engaged in produce enough to justify the loss of the resource consumed by such activity?
2. Is the resource exploited in order to conduct such activity capable of being renewed (ie. is the activity sustainable)?
The fact that point one is dependent on point two often seems to completely escape the modern conventional Standard Model physicist.
 |
| Physicians who are not themselves physicists treat physicists who are not themselves physicians and are informed by same. |
The Emergence of the Great Attractor
So we must start from the understanding ("words matter" not "matter words"), that something cannot expand into nothing. Instead let us posit, following Hawking, that singularity may exist but that we may only ever approach it (both as individual human beings and as a species), until such time as we experience it in toto and that such experience precludes any return to duality. Let us also be informed (re: Hawking), that the lifetimes of individual black holes may be finite, quote; "While empty space may seem devoid of energy, it isn’t — according to quantum mechanics, the energy of a vacuum fluctuates slightly over time. Those fluctuations manifest as pairs of particles — a particle and an antiparticle — that pop into and out of existence throughout the universe. Because energy cannot be created from nothing, one of the particles will have positive energy and the other negative. These particle pairs usually immediately annihilate one another. But if the particles appear at the boundary of a black hole’s event horizon, it’s possible for the particle with negative energy to fall into the black hole, while the particle with positive energy escapes. It then appears that the black hole has radiated a particle away. Einstein showed that energy and mass are proportional with his equation E = mc2. Therefore, the negative energy from the forsaken particle actually removes mass from the black hole, causing it to shrink.
But don’t expect a black hole to disappear any time soon. It takes a shockingly long time for a black hole to shed all of its mass as energy via Hawking radiation. It would take 10100 years, or a googol, for a supermassive black hole to fully disappear. “The entire age of the universe [is] a fraction of [the time] it would take,” says Priyamvada Natarajan, a researcher at Yale University who probes the nature of black holes. “As far as we’re concerned, it is eternity.”
Death Throes
Exactly how long an individual black hole lives depends strongly on its mass. The larger a black hole gets, the longer it takes to evaporate. “In that sense, [a black hole] can cheat death by growing,” Doeleman says.
He compares the process to an hourglass, where the sand at the top is the amount of time a black hole has left. By gobbling down more stars and gas, a black hole continues to add sand to the hourglass of its life, even as individual particles trickle out. “As long as there is material around [to eat], the black hole can keep resetting its clock,” Doeleman says. Eventually, as the universe ages, the material around a black hole will run out and its doomsday clock will start ticking.
As a black hole evaporates, it slowly shrinks and, as it loses mass, the rate of particles escaping also increases until all the remaining energy escapes at once. In the final tenth of a second of a black hole’s life, “you will have a huge flash of light and energy,” Natarajan says. “It’s almost like a million nuclear fusion bombs going off in a very tiny region of space.”
By Earth’s standards, that’s a lot, significantly more than the total nuclear arsenal of all nations. In astronomical terms, not so much. The most powerful supernova yet recorded (ASSASN-15lh) was 22 trillion times more explosive than a black hole will be in its final moments.
It doesn’t matter how small or how massive a black hole is, their closing fireworks are exactly the same. The only difference is how long it will take a black hole to explode. But once a black hole gobbles down its last meal, all that’s left is for the sand grains to relentlessly tumble down until there’s nothing left.": https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-beginning-to-the-end-of-the-universe-how-black-holes-die/
Thus one may say that individual black holes "pertain" to singularity whilst they "partake" of totality. It's important to remember that totality can remain un-manifest as it is the absence of both matter and light (in other words "life" which doesn't itself matter if nothing does -clearly-), however, the point of origin necessary to Big Bang theory cannot as it represents the presence of light and matter (from its inception). The mathematicians should see this clearly for there is no "irrational contradiction", furthermore, its this way most of us live our lives; not really knowing how and why we are here whilst knowing with absolute certainty that our brief sojourn will end (what applies to the individual also applying to the species -after all any number compared to infinity is none-). This, I contend, is the ultimate value of Hawking's notion of "radiation" for, "it is by death that life is known" and it is often best to describe things by what they are not. Hawking's theory indicates the importance of the notions of Dark Matter and Dark Energy whilst suggesting that the Cosmological Principle (as currently understood), is indeed inadequate to explain modern observations (esp. using quasars), that suggest the existence of super-clusters which themselves must rely on the presence of immense (unfortunately it also seems we may run out of superlatives to describe our predicament), black holes for their formation.
Hawking Radiation (update 29/04/2024)
So can we say that the manifest universe is a function of Hawking Radiation (or at least the principles of such)? We have to account for what appears to us to be an unfathomable proliferation of substance yet any number compared to infinity is none. What if quanta was indeed information? Haven't we also discovered that social-scientifically?
Above is a representation of the first super-cluster to be discovered using the ionised-magnesium observations described above Laniakea. On his BBC programme "Secrets of Size: Atoms to Supergalaxies" (go to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0017frp/secrets-of-size-atoms-to-supergalaxies), Prof Jim Al-Khalili compares these super-clusters to the natural forms we already know, such as river systems, when he did so I was put in mind of the teachings of many pre-Christian (esp.), cultures who talk of a "cosmic" or "world" tree.
 |
| The "Ashvattha" |
is not to be discerned here,
neither its end,
nor beginning,
nor ongoing life.
When its fully grown roots
are cut by the strong axe
of non-clinging,
then that place must be sought
where, once they have gone,
they will not turn back again,
and they think,
‘I take refuge
in the first spirit
where activity flowed forth
in ancient times.’ The Bhagavad Gita: https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-bhagavad-gita/symbols/ashvattha-tree?utm_source=pocket_saves
 |
| Ouroboros |
The system is “open ended” (#opensource), it is emergent…
Quote; "Words Based on the Eco- Root Word
Following is a list of words based on the Eco- Root Word:
1. Ecoactivist: One who actively opposes the pollution or destruction by other means, of the environment.
2. Ecobabble: Using the technical language of ecology to make the user seem to be ecologically aware.
3. Ecobiology: The study of the relationships of organisms to their natural environments.
4. Ecobiosis: The conditions pertaining to a mode of life within a specific habitat
5. Ecocatastrophe: Major damage to the environment, especially when caused by human activity
6. Ecocentric: Centering on the environment
7. Bioecological: A reference to the interrelationships between plants and animals and their abiotic enviro ments.
8. Bioecologist: Someone who favors, or specializes, bioecology; such as, an ecologist.
9. Bioecology: The science of organisms as affected by the factors of their environments.
10. Ecocidal: Designed or tending to destroy the environment.
11. Ecocide: Destruction or damage of the environment
12. Ecoclimate: The climate as an ecological factor; the climate of a habitat.
13. Ecocline: Reflecting ecological conditions in general.
14. Econometrician: A student of, or specialist in, econometrics.
15. Econometrics: The branch of economics concerned
with the application of mathematical economics to economic data by the
use of statistical methods.
16. Economics: The study or the social science of the
production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with
the theory and management of economies or economic systems which
include material goods and financial resources.
17. Economist: Someone who studies, works, or is an expert in the field of economics." https://wordpandit.com/eco-root-word/
Here we can see how closely related the notions of ecology and
economics
really are, this seems to indicate that the Industrial Revolution
(esp.), saw a perversion of the language describing transaction/exchange
in order
to underpin a Socially Darwinistic model of human evolution, allow this
exploitative model to gain ascendancy and fulfil (esp.), capitalism’s
imperial and “manifest destiny”. It
may, therefore, be the case that a misapprehension of the nature of
economic theory has stemmed directly from the exploitation of
non-renewable resources.
Khaos
Cern drew up plans for the next machine, the Future Circular Collider (FCC), in 2019. The €20bn (£17bn) machine would have a 91km circumference and aim to smash subatomic particles together at a maximum energy of 100 teraelectronvolts (TeV). The Large Hadron Collider achieves maximum energies of 14TeV.
The
proposal has its critics, however. Sir David King, the UK’s former
government chief scientific adviser, told the BBC that spending billions
on the machine would be “reckless” when the world was facing such grave threats from the climate crisis.*" Go to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/05/cern-atom-smasher-unlock-secrets-universe-large-hadron-collider
 |
| Proposed new accelerator |
Go to: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2024/02/the-death-of-british-liberalism.html
"Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the universe is a tw*t!" Prof. Brian Cox.
The context being that, quote; "Brian was responding to reports that LHC scientists had received death threats in the run-up to the September 10th start date of the particle accelerator": https://astroengine.com/2008/09/06/a-statement-by-professor-brian-cox/ Knowing that actions have consequences I would never espouse such, however, Prof. Cox there are extremists in every camp, for instance, simply because I am in favour of a devolved republican Britannia does not make me a terrorist (although some who claim to support such most definitely have been if they are not now), and even The ANC was originally characterised as being a terrorist organisation.
In other words; "It's o.k Brian that doesn't make you a pr*ck ( yet )!"
Imagine if the generations who grew up with the Cold War were mistaken though, imagine if there really was something worse than global thermonuclear destruction. What could that possibly be? Has our species chosen blissful ignorance over informed hysteria? How long is it possible to remain in denial?
The realm of Khaos is one of neither life nor death and may prove to be perpetual. We may, however, escape such a fate all that is required is that we should choose to.
Nb. Although I took (& barely passed), maths and physics at "O" Level my training has been mainly in the social (I also took some statistics adult ed.), and, esp. as a campaigner, environmental sciences.
Please check this blog (and the other social media platforms I use), for more on these subjects, I will post further as soon as such becomes possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment