Top page ( quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are wrong )
Gravity wave isn't real.
Big Bang theory has fatal flaws.
(Fig.1) Accelerating universe = Dark energy is increasing ← "real" energy ??
Einstein relativity suffers many fatal paradoxes.
According to the present cosmology, they insist the universe is expanding at an increasing rate (= accelerating universe ).
And "unkown" dark energy is said to be involved in this expansion of the universe.
Accelerating universe means, this mysterious dark energy does NOT become weaker by space expansion.
So, the total energy of dark energy is increasing with time.
( = dark energy → 2× energy → 4× energy .. → ∞ ! )
The basic physical principle of energy conservation is violated.
They introduced very unnatural concept of "negative" pressure ( P < 0 ) to explain this strange phenomenon.
But as you feel, this ad-hoc and artificial definition is very unrealistic , and shows accelerating universe is wrong.
(Fig.2) Ether was denied → virtual particles, dark matter, energy, Higgs.. = ether ??
Though they rejected "ether", relativistic quantum field theories need infinite virtual particles, dark matter, dark energy and Higgs filling all the vacuum.
This idea is completely inconsistent with special relativity, which denied "ether".
In fact, the kinds of "ether" have been increased much more in relativisitic quantum field theory !
And as shown on this page, special realtivity includes fatal paradoxes (= Ehrenfest, trouton-noble, right-angle lever.. )
If we accept one kind of "ether"-like matter from the beginning, we can explain uniform cosmic microwave background (= CMB ) and dark matter , without artificially increasing the kinds of ether.
(Fig.3) Why they easily jump to conclusion that red shift shows expanding universe ?
They easily jump to conclusion that cosmological redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, in which the distant light source (= star ) moves away from the earth.
This is what we call, Doppler effect.
The important point is that the cosmological redshift is caused by the space expansion itself, not by star's mortion.
So they insist photon's wavelength is elongated (= red shift ), which completely contradicts the particle nature of "photon".
(Fig.4) Space is filled with many kinds of particles ? Why "photon" can easily go through it ?
According to the accelerating universe, the light is elongated ONLY by space expansion itself.
So according to this theory, the light (= photon ) is NOT influenced at all by various matters included in the space.
This is very strange.
As I said in Fig.2, the present theory insists the space is filled with many kinds of ether-like matters such as dark energy, dark matter ( which can influence light as gravitational lens ), Higgs and virtual particles.
In addition to them, a lot of plasma gas exist in the space.
So it is very unnatural that the light can propagate for extremely long time (= billions of light years ), NOT influenced by the scace matter at all.
(Fig.5) Light loses more energy from more distant glaxies.
Instead of accepting very unrealistic idea such as accelerating universe, we can naturally explain red shft from the distant stars by tired light theory.
Even if you choose the present contradictory relativistic theory, you needs infinite ether-like matters filling space.
So it is natural that we think the light tends to lose its energy while it is oscillating and propagating through some medium.
Furthermore, plasma gas filling space can really influence the light frequency by electric (magnetic) interactions.
It is very unrealistic and unbelievable that the light does not lose the slightest energy, even after travelling through the extremely long way (= billions of light years ! )
As you know, the light does NOT have so durability.
(Fig.6) Light from more distant galaxies becomes more "tired" and "longer".
After supernova explosion, it emits lights, and we can observe them for about two weeks.
But in case of more distant supernova, we can observe them for more than two weeks.
They insit this extended observation period of light is due to space expansion and unrealistic time dilation.
But considering fatal paradoxes, this insistence is completely wrong.
For example, the distance between the first and last runners become more longer in marathon than in 100-meter race.
In the same way, the difference in influences by space matters becomes bigger in the lights from more distant stars.
This mechanism based on the tired-light is more natural than the unrealistic idea that the light is NOT influenced at all by infinite space matters.
(Fig.7) "Photon" becomes slower in medium, after colliding with very tiny water's particles ??
The important point is that the present special relativity cannot explain the reasonable reason why the photon's speed becomes slower in various mediums.
For example, if the photon is absorbed by atoms via atomic transition in the mediums, and after a slight delay, it is re-emitted, the absorption spectrum should be discrete.
But this discrete spectrums are not observed, so this explanation is incorrect.
The refractive index of graphite and diamond are different from each other, though both are made up of carbon atoms.
And when photon collides with very tiny electrons ( or protons ), that light is bent irregularly.
( It is unnatural that all tiny photon always collide with other tiny particles in the water ).
So they have to depend on virtual quasiparticle of "phonon" to explain this phenomena.
From the realistic viewpoint, the large space among very tiny electrons and nuclei are filled with various kinds of electric fields.
So the vacuum is NOT empty, it contains electric ( and magnetic ) fields, which strongly act on each particle and light.
These electric fields ( in the vacuum ) from various partricles influences electromagnetic waves, which causes the light speed change, NOT scattering them.
In the same way, this "not empty" vacuum can change the frequency of lights from distant stars, NOT scattering them.
(Fig.8) Horizon problem needs faster-than-light expansion of the universe.
The present standard cosmology insists the universe age is 13.7 billion years, so the light cannot go beyond 13.7 billion light-years.
But CMB (= cosmic microwave background ) from the opposite directions (= 13.7 × 2 = 27.4 billion ly ) are almost uniform, so this fact means there are some faster-than-light interactions between them.
This is called horizon problem, which shows unnaturalness of Big Bang theory.
Of course, as I said, if we admit some ether-like matter filling space, this uniform CMB can be naturally explained, NOT invoking faster-than-light interaction.
They insist, if the universe expanded faster-than-light at Big Bing (= inflation ), this relation can be naturally explained ( see Inflation is fantasy. )
But it is completely inconsistent with causality of relativity, which forbids faster-than-light speed.
( They insists "space" itself can travel faster-than-light, though each particle cannot. )
Furthermore, to avoid singularity of the early universe, you must believe unrealistic "imaginary" time (= i ).
(Fig.9) Our universe is very special case = Anthropic principle is right !?
According to the present Big Bang theory, if the critical density of the universe was slightly greater than 1 ( Ω > 1 ), our universe would have been contracted and crushed now (= big crunch ).
If this critical density was slightly lower than 1 ( Ω < 1 ), our universe would have been too expanded, which cannot form our galaxies at all.
For our universe to be formed properly, the initial condition of this density has to be fine-tuned to very special values.
The value of this Ω in the early universe must have been 1 ± 10-60.
So the present Big Bang theory depends on very unnatural preconditions.
Some prople try to explain this unnaturalness using anthropic principle.
But accepting anthropic principle means the defeat of our science.
Faster-than-light inflation must have been introduced to solve this flatness ( and horizon ) problem.
(Fig.10) Unrealistically powerful "inflaton" really existed ?
To solve horizon and flatness problems, they need faster-than-light inflation theory.
Surprisingly, this inflation speed (= space expanded exponentially ) must have been about 1022 times the light speed !
( > 1022 × c. )
During very short time of 10-34 seconds, a thing as small as a virus expanded to that as large as "galaxy".
At first, they tried to introduce inflation theories based on Higgs scalar fields.
But this Higgs-based inflation failed due to inconsistency with the observation.
So they had to introduce other new scalar fields of "inflaton".
There are many kinds of different inflation theories now, and they rely on many free parameters, we can artificially adjust, including quantum fluctuation.
So we cannot confirm whether these unrealistic theories are right or not forever.
They try to detect very weak gravity wave of the early universe to investigate how inflation occurred.
But from the realistic viewpoint, it is impossible that the effects 13.8 billion years ago remain as they are, even now.
(Fig.11) Electron remains as it is. Why ONLY photon particle becomes "Big photon" ??
The present Big Bang theory is based on the idea that cosmological redshift is due to the elongation of "photon" by the universe expansion.
Of course, if all particles included in the universe expanded in the same way, we could NOT notice the universe is expanding.
As you know, the quantum mechanics insists all particles such as electrons and protons have wave-like properties (= de Broglie wave ).
Then why other particles such as electrons, protons, various atoms and molecules did NOT expand, though photon particle did. (= Photon is NOT a particle ?? )
So the present ad-hoc Big Bang theory includes self-contradiction from the beginning.
(Fig.12) Oldest star is older than the universe itself ← paradox !
According to the present Big Bang theory, the age of universe is 13.8 billion years.
But recently, they find a 14.5 billion-year-old star, which is older than the universe itself ! (= Paradox. )
They insist the error is ± 0.8 billion, so they can barely avoid this serious paradox ( 14.5 - 0.8 = 13.7 )
But at first, they said this star is as old as 16.0 billion years.
After some time, they corrected it to the present value ( I think this correction is very artificial to avoid paradox ).
Even the earth is 4.5 billion years old, so this age of universe by Big Bang theory is too young from the realistic viewpoint.
(Fig.13) All heliums were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang !? ← Impossible !
They insist the present hydrogen-helium abundance is just consistent with the standard Big Bang model.
But unfortunately, this interpretation is based on ad-hoc assumptions.
Helium accounts for about 25 % of matters in the present universe ( by mass ).
They insisted all these heliums were suddenly produced only in the first 3 minutes of the Big Bang, and their total amount did NOT change at all for as long as 13.8 billion years after that !
Furthermore they insist all neutrons in the early universe are changed into helium during this short time of 3 minutes.
So this "3 minutes" in the early universe is very special time.
As I explain later, this idea is completely out of touch with reality.
(Fig.14) Static universe → the night sky becomes completely bright !? → Paradox ?
Here we divide the universe into a series of concentric shells.
The number of shining stars included in a spherical shell ( with the redius of "R" ) is proportional to R2.
And the light intensity from these stars are inversely proportional to R2. ( ← this is wrong. )
As a result, total light intensity from that spherical shell of the universe becomes some constant "C".
By integrating them in all radius R from 0 to ∞, the brightness on the earth diverges to infinity, which contradicts dark night sky.
But as you feel, considering more energy loss from more distant stars, the light intensity becomes much more weaker than 1/R2, so this paradox does NOT occur even in static universe.
The electromagnetic wave we can observe is very special form.
There are cases when various oscillation of space matters by these energy are NOT observed as electromagnetic waves.
And considering some low energy absorption and reflection, the energies of electromagnetic waves, which can reach the earth from distant stars, become much smaller.
(Eq.1) Robertson-Walker metric.
They use famous Robertson Walker metric to express homogenous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe.
a(t) is scale factor, which means the size of universe.
Einstein field equation including consmological term (= Λ ) is
( See also this page. )
(Eq.2)
In Eq.2, Gμν is Einstein tensor, T00 is mass energy, and P is some pressure.
Λ is consmological constant, which expresses mysterious dark energy (= negative pressure ).
I think, as long as we are bound with this very abstract mathematical "old" equation, we cannot make progress at all in describing more complicated and dynamical actual phenomena.
It's about time we awake from a long dream.
Using metric of Eq.1, we can get Friedmann equation.
(Eq.3)
As shown in Eq.3, if this Λ is constant, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate (= accelerating universe ).
This Λ means dark energy, they insist. ( There are no concrete images at all in this concept. )
As you see, if we can prove relativity is wrong, accelerating universe can be denied, too.
(Eq.4) Neutron = proton !?
They insist weak interaction between neutron and proton is in equilibrium at 1012 K just after Big Bang started.
At these extremely high temperature, electron and proton cannot form atoms and molecules, they insist.
But this explanation includes self-contradiction, as I explain later.
(Eq.5) Helium is produced.
As the universe is expanding, the temperature becomes lower.
So the reactions of Eq.4 didn't happen at about 109 K, which means the numbers of neutron and proton are almost fixed, they insist.
At this temperature, All neutrons at this point were used to generate helium atom, according to their theory.
The ratio of neutron to proton is 1 : 7 according to their calculation, so if all these neutrons are used to form helium atoms, helium ratio becomes
(Eq.6) All heliums are produced within ONLY 3 minutes from Big Bang !?
Helium 4 includes two neutrons, so the ratio of helium becomes 25 %, when the ratio of neutron to proton is 1 : 7.
After 3 minutes, temperature becomes lower ( T < 109 K ), and two protons cannot come closer to form helium, they insist.
If these 3 minutes have passed, nuclear fusion for helium does NOT occur. ( ← wrong. )
It is very unnatural and strange that all neutrons in the universe at this time can bind to protons within only 3 minutes.
So, according to the present Big Bang theory, all helium atoms in the present universe is produced within ONLY 3 minutes from Big bang.
As shown in the present sun, helium atoms are generated by nuclear fusion at about 107 K, even now.
So their idea that helium can be formed during only 3 minutes ( = temperature is 109 K ) is completely wrong and ungrounded.
(Fig.15) Summary of "unreal" helium production.
First, the precondition of neutron and proton ratio is completely wrong.
They insist very unstable neutrons existed as much ( or 1/7 times) as protons just after Big Bang.
And there are NO hydrogen atoms. ( ← wrong. )
But as you know, hydrogen atoms are much more stable than neutrons, so it is natural that hydrogen atoms were produced much more instead of unstable neutrons.
So the ratio of neutron to proton in the early universe is very strange.
(Eq.7) Hubble's law.
According to Hubble's law, the expanding speed "v" can be expressed as Eq.7.
"d" is the distance from the earth, and H0 is Hubble constant.
When this expanding speed is the light speed "c", this distance lH is called "Hubble distance".
(Eq.8)
We suppose mass density ρ is fluctuating at some time "t".
In this way, the preconditions of the present cosmology is very vague and can be freely changed by our intentions.
(Eq.9)
Eq.9 means all mass included in the Hubble distance lH.
(Eq.10)
Here they suppose average mass fluctuation like Eq.10.
Here P(k) is called power spectrum,
(Eq.11)
Using Eq.11, mass fluctuation becomes
(Eq.12)
When n = 1 this fluctuation becomes "scale-invariant", which is consistent with observation, they insist.
But in various inflation theories, we can freely change various parameters such as amplitude of the fluctuation, and the forms of field potentials.
So these theories about inflation cannot predict anything due to a lot of free parameters.
2013/11/10 updated. Feel free to link to this site.