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 **10 ^{22} times** the light speed !

( > 10

During very short time of 10

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 **R ^{2}**.

And the light

As a result, total light intensity from that spherical shell of the universe becomes some constant "

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/R^{2}, 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, G_{μν} is Einstein tensor, T_{00} 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 10^{12} 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 10^{9} 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 < 10^{9} 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 10^{7} K, even now.

So their idea that helium can be formed during **only** 3 minutes ( = temperature is 10^{9} 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 H_{0} is Hubble constant.

When this expanding speed is the light speed "c", this distance l_{H} 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 l_{H}.

*(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.