This article presents a new physical and cosmological model which works with hypothetical small particles like gravity particles and which looks at the universe as infinite in space and time. The apparent constancy of the speed of light, stellar aberration, the two slit experiment, gravity, inertia, the stability of atoms, time dilatation, cosmological redshift, Doppler redshift, gravitational redshift, cosmic background radiation, temperature differences in the cosmic background radiation, distances measured with type 1a supernovae, dark matter, the dark sky at night, the amount of helium in the universe, peculiar movement of galaxies and clusters of galaxies: everything is explained in a simple and simple coherent way with hypothetical small particles in an infinite universe.
The speed of light
Before people knew whether the speed of light was finite or infinite it was measured that sound had a certain speed. One of the earliest measurements of the speed of sound was made by the Frenchman Mersenne (1588-1648). An assistant of Mersenne fired a cannon at several kilometers distant and Mersenne measured the time between the flash and the noise of the blast. His result was approximately 300 meter a second, which was quite close to the actual speed of sound which is 330 meter a second. Of course people always had suspected that sound had a finite speed because of echo's and because the further one was away from a flash of lightning the longer it took for the noise of the ensuing thunder to be heard.
About light there were very different opinions. René Descartes (1596-1650) for example thought that the speed of light was infinite where Galilei Galileo (1564-1632) considered the speed of light to be finite. However, experiments to measure the speed of light were much more difficult than experiments to determine the speed of sound.
In 1675 Ole Roemer (1644-1710) was the first to determine the speed of light. Io, one of the moons of Jupiter, orbited Jupiter every 42.5 hour and eclipsed once every 42.5 hour behind Jupiter. Roemer noticed that Io disappeared 1000 seconds later when Jupiter was at its largest distance from the earth than half a year later when Jupiter was most close to the Earth. Roemer saw the 1000 seconds difference as the result of light travelling twice the distance between the sun and the earth when the earth was at its largest distance from Jupiter. The distance between the earth and the sun was quite well known at the time and so Roemer calculated a speed of light that was close to the actual speed of light. Roemer's method is known as the first successful determination of the speed of light.
The next successful determination was done by the Englishman James Bradley in 17271.
Suppose you look through a telescope to a star that is north of the earth (or south of the earth when you are in the southern hemisphere). The light coming from the star travels perpendicular to the plane that the earth makes in its orbit around the sun. You will notice the telescope must be tilted to see the star. When you look at the star half a year later you will notice that the telescope must be tilted again, but then in the opposite direction. The telescope must be tilted because the earth orbits the sun with a velocity of 30 km a second. The angle of tilt is the result of this 30 km a second and the velocity of light: 300,000 km a second. The angle of tilt is: (30/300,000) x 90° = 0,009°
(I explain more about this later with the figures 1 and 2.)
Bradley measured the angle of tilt, knew quite well how much the velocity of the earth was in its orbit around the sun (30 km a second) and thus calculated the velocity of light. Bradley's method confirmed Roemer's calculated velocity of light 50 years earlier. Bradley's discovery of holding the telescope tilted and his calculation of the velocity of light with it were enormous mile-stones within the science-community. Now it was evident that the velocity of light was finite and that it should be about 300,000 km a second, because Roemer and Bradley independently came with the same value with completely different determinations/observations. In the nineteenth century accurate experiments were done to calculate the velocity of light confirming a velocity of 300,000 km a second. We now know that the velocity of light indeed is 300,000 km a second (the exact velocity of light in vacuum is 299,792 km a second).
Bradley called the telescope-tilted-phenomenon stellar aberration. I will explain a little more about it.
Look at the following figures.
One moment you see:
Figure 1. A telescope which is located at a star that is north of the earth. The light coming from the star travels perpendicular to the plane that the earth makes in its orbit around the sun.
Half a year later the star appears to be somewhere else because in the earth's orbit around the sun the earth travels with 30 km a second in the opposite direction:
Figure 2. A telescope which is located at a star that is north of the earth. The light coming from the star travels perpendicular to the plane that the earth makes in its orbit around the sun.
All we know about stellar aberration is that we see such a star somewhere else when we travel with the earth in a different direction. How is this possible? That is the big question. Bradley explained it as follows and ever since scientists have followed this explanation without a second of doubt. According to Bradley the light beam went from B tot C in figures 1 and 2. While photons go from B to C with a speed of 300,000 km a second, the observer (and telescope) move from A to C with 30 km a second. This is the explanation of Bradley. I am not doubting what Bradley observed, i.e. that the apparent position of the star changes. Not the observation, but Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration, is wrong in my opinion.
I neither doubt Bradley's calculation of the speed of light. I too expect that the angle between AB and AC is determined by the speed of light and the velocity of the earth. Later more about this when I explain stellar aberration with an ether theory. What I want to point out here is: of course it was very logical that no one doubted Bradley's explanation. Bradley's explanation and his calculation of the speed of light with it brought a confirmation of the speed of light calculated by Roemer. A milestone in the history of science. I think that Bradley's explanation is the historical mistake that has led to the theory of relativity and, with the theory of relativity as a wrong starting point, to the big bang model and the string theory. Later on I will come back to stellar aberration, first something about the ether theory of the nineteenth century.
The search for the ether
After Roemer and Bradley had shown that light had a finite speed of about 300,000 km a second people started to think about how light could propagate itself. It was thought that the propagation of light could be understood by comparing it with the propagation of sound. Sound propagated itself by moving air (or other material like water or stone through which sound can propagate itself). Sound could not propagate itself through vacuum, sound needed material to propagate itself. Light could propagate itself through vacuum. That is, vacuum as scientists new it: without air. However, vacuum without air was not real vacuum according to the scientists of the nineteenth century. They thought there was a substance in the vacuum, a substance that enabled light to propagate itself through vacuum. Scientists named this hypothetical substance the luminiferous ether, or just plain ether. There was ether everywhere in the universe and it enabled light to propagate itself. The word ether came from Aristotle (384-322 BC) who thought that the earth and the moon were made of four elements: earth, water, air and fire. Outside the sphere bounded by the orbit of the moon he thought that everything was made out of ether.
Between 1800 and 1905, when Einstein introduced his special theory of relativity, scientists thought that light propagated itself through the ether. They thought that the ether could exist in two different ways. One way was that the ether could be stationary and fixed (like Newton's absolute space about which I explain more later), in which case the earth was moving through it while the ether stood still. The other way was that the ether could move with objects through the universe, objects like the earth and the moon. However, scientists had Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration in their heads. If in figure 1 indeed the light wave travels from B to C while the telescope moves from A to C then one had to think of a stationary ether that was standing still. However, with the scientists minds fixed on a stationary ether a measurement came up that turned their thoughts about light into an unsolvable puzzle. Because of this unsolvable puzzle scientists in 1900 spoke about the Great Dilemma when they referred to the scientific understanding of the propagation of light1.
Because of Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration and therefore the thought of a stationary ether scientists in the nineteenth century thought they should be able to measure the following1.
The earth orbits the sun with 30 km a second. Suppose one looks at a star that is in the direction that the earth has in its orbit around the sun. While starlight moves with a speed of 300,000 km a second towards the earth, the earth moves with a speed of 30 km a second towards the star or the starlight. This is what one expects when light propagates itself through a stationary ether. The light moves with a speed of 300,000 km a second relative to the ether and the earth moves with 30 km a second relative to the ether. The speed of the earth relative to the approaching starlight then is 300,000 + 30 = 300,030 km a second. When one looks at the star half a year later one expects the speed of the earth relative to the approaching starlight to be 300,000 - 30 = 299,970 km a second, because the earth recedes from the star and hence too from the approaching starlight.
Centuries ago scientists expected to be able to measure this difference because of the so-called out-of-focus effect. This effect was thought to take place as follows. Suppose one looks with a (in a certain way focussed) telescope at a star towards which the earth does not move to nor goes away from as shown in figure 3a.
Figure 3a. Photons of a star are brought to focus in point P while the earth/telescope stands still.
The light of the star is brought to focus in P while the telescope stands still (in a way the telescope stands still when the earth, in its orbit around the sun, is at its nearest or farthest from the star). Because focus point P is not the place where our eye is we see the star out of focus.
However, when the earth moves with 30 km a second towards the star as shown in figure 3b, scientists expected that photons in the telescope would move from right to left with 300,000 km a second (relative to the fixed stationary ether) while the telescope would move from left to right with 30 km a second (relative to the fixed stationary ether). The (still in the same way as in figure 3a focussed) telescope now was supposed to be focussed at the star because focus point P is where our eye is.
Figure 3b. Photons of a star are brought to focus in point P while the earth/telescope moves with 30 km/s towards the star.
But a half year later the situation would be entirely different because then the earth moves with 30 km a second away from the star as shown in figure 3c. While photons move with 300,000 km a second in the fixed stationary ether from right to left the (still in the same way focussed) telescope now too moves from right to left with 30 km a second.
Figure 3c. Photons of a star are brought to focus in point P while the earth/telescope moves with 30 km/s away from the star.
A telescope focussed to have a sharp image of the star in figure 3b would bring a not sharp image half a year later if you looked with the same focus at the star1. However, when scientists tried to observe this it appeared that the star always could be looked at with the same focus. This was a big puzzle for the scientists. Apparently the ether was not fixed, but how then should be looked at the ether? During the nineteenth century more and more measurements brought problems with respect to the ether that was supposed to be fixed and stationary (because of Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration). Time after time the speed of light was measured to be constant relative to the earth and not relative to a fixed stationary ether.
However, there was a way out and this was suggested too: suppose the ether was not fixed. Sound, as we here it on earth, propagated itself with a speed of 0.33 km a second on earth. But the earth travels with 30 km a second in its orbit around the sun. Still, this much faster 30 km a second does not matter because the substance through which sound propagates itself, the air, displaces itself together with the earth with 30 km a second because it is connected (by gravity) with the earth. Could it possibly be that something like that also was the case with the propagation of light, scientists asked themselves in the nineteenth century. Of course this was a very logical and healthy idea after not measuring the out-of-focus effect. But James Bradley's calculations concerning stellar aberration had brought an independent confirmation of Roemer's speed of light calculation. This had been such a milestone within science that Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration, which was closely bound up with the (correct and independent) calculation of the speed of light, was not doubted. And with Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration there could not be an ether that was displayed together with the earth because it was connected to the earth and hence moved along with the earth1. Therefore there was an enormous problem where scientists tried to understand the propagation of light with an ether theory. Around 1900 scientists called this problem the Great Dilemma. A dilemma which I think never would have come around if scientists would have been willing to doubt Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration. After not measuring the out-of-focus effect scientists could have doubted Bradley's explanation (instead of rejecting an ether dragged along with the earth), but this never happened.
The theory of relativity
I think Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration is the hinge of modern science. How did things develop after Bradley's explanation? Not measuring the out-of-focus effect and other experiments with light showed that light always had the same speed relative to the earth, but there could not be an ether moving along with the earth because of Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration1. But if light always had the same speed relative to the earth and no ether moved along with the earth then light coming from the star in figure 3 also had the same speed to the earth the moment that light was still close to the star (and many light years away from earth). So it did not seem to matter whether one moved towards the starlight with the earth or away from it. It appeared that light always had the same speed relative to the earth. In 1905 Albert Einstein came with a solution for the Great Dilemma: "Make it a law of physics. Say that the speed of starlight always is constant relative to the earth and then you have explained it."
The suggestion that the speed of light relative to an observer always is constant, is the basis of the special theory of relativity. From Einstein's law that the speed of light relative to every observer is constant follows that time is a physically existing entity. (And time as a physically existing entity initiated the general theory of relativity. If time is not a physically existing entity there is no spacetime and hence no general theory of relativity either.) From Einstein's statement that the speed of light is constant also can be deducted that nothing can go faster than light. That scientists brought up the latter and accepted it easily is not hard to understand. The same thing as with the speed of light supposedly being constant relative to an observer happened. It was measured that the speed of light was always constant relative to the earth and therefore it was easily accepted as a law of physics. Also: nothing going faster than light was ever measured. Therefore it was easily accepted that nothing could go faster than light.
The photon is the smallest particle we know and we know of the photon ever since we existed as human kind because we see photons with our eyes. So it was naturally that one day we came so far that we could measure light with instruments. For instance with a photographic plate, something we were able to invent because we could see light with our eyes so we knew when we were in a dark room which was so important for photography. Hence our eyes have been an important measuring-instrument to find other measuring-instruments for light. Perhaps that much smaller particles than photons exist (for instance gravitons, which I call gravity particles in this paper) and that such smaller particles travel much faster than light. According to the theory of relativity the speed of gravity equals the speed of light, but this has not been confirmed experimentally.
Problem with Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration
So within conventional science we have the explanation of stellar aberration by James Bradley and Albert Einstein's statement that light always has the same speed relative to the earth. This can bring us to the following. (In the following reasoning I start from Bradley's explanation and the constant speed of light, i.e. I keep reasoning within the statements of conventional science.)
If the earth approaches a photon as shown in figure 4 then the earth approaches the path (the dotted line) over which the photon travels, with 30 km a second. The directions of movement of the earth and the photon are exactly perpendicular.
Figure 4. The directions of movement of the earth and the photon are exactly perpendicular.
If the earth approaches a photon as shown in figure 5 the earth approaches the photon with exactly 300,000 km a second (strictly speaking it is 299,792 km a second, but to keep it simple I take 300,000 km a second as the speed of light in this paper.)
Figure 5. The directions of movement of the earth and the photon are exactly opposite.
Now back to the telescope of Bradley for a moment (see also figures 1 and 2).
Figure 6. The directions of movement of the earth and the photon are exactly perpendicular.
The moment the photon in figure 6 goes from B to C with a speed of 300,000 km a second, the telescope/earth goes from A to C with a speed of 30 km a second. Of course the movement of direction of a photon never will be exactly perpendicular to the movement of direction of the earth. In general we will have something as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7. The directions of movement of the earth and the photon are oblique.
According to conventional science also now the telescope/earth will go from A tot C while the photon goes from B to C. But also in figure 8 it will go this way.
Figure 8. The directions of movement of the earth and the photon are oblique.
Of course a photon will never come exactly from the opposite of the earth's direction of movement. One always will have to tilt the telescope a little and so one always deals with Bradley's explanation. So one can have the practical situation as shown in figure 9, but the direction of movement of the telescope/earth will never be exactly on one line with the direction of movement of the photon, therefore Bradley's explanation always will apply and so the telescope/earth will move from A tot C with a speed of 30 km a second while the photon goes from B to C with a speed of 300,000 km a second.
Figure 9. The directions of movement of the earth and the photon are almost opposite.
But this means that the earth has a speed of 30 km a second relative to the (with 300,000 km a second approaching) photon. Therefore I think that the speed of the earth relative to the photon in figure 9 is 300,030 km a second and not 300,000 km a second as current conventional science supposes. Nowhere between figure 6 and figure 9 one can say: here is where Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration stops. Whether the speed of the earth relative to an approaching photon (that still is far away from the earth) as shown in figure 5 is 300,030 or 300,000 km a second never has been measured. Scientists only measured the speed of light relative to the earth on earth.
I think that both Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration and the supposed constant speed of light are wrong tracks within current conventional science. As soon as you drop the idea that the speed of light is absolute, or invariable, or always constant to an observer, the special theory of relativity is finished and then there can be something faster than light and then one can suppose that time does not exist outside our brains. Stellar aberration can be explained different, as well as the apparent constant speed of light, I will come back on both further on. First something about hypothetical small particles and all kind of things that can be explained with them.
Work and forces
We now know molecules, atoms, photons and a number of subatomic particles. Long ago this was very different. The old Greeks did experiments to show that air was something. But long before the old Greeks people may have thought that air was nothing. The number of molecules in 1 cubic centimetre gas in our room is about 2.7 x 1019. Every second every particle hits about a billion time another particle. Hence it is logical that sound can transport itself easily because molecules "hit each other" when they transport sound. We only came to know what molecules and atoms are since about 1800. Is it possible that there are much smaller particles which we don't know yet because we don't have sense-organs nor measuring-instruments for those particles? Though, we do have a sense-organ and measuring-instruments for one hypothetical particle. When we hold up our arm our arm gets tired by gravity and we feel that in our muscles. We know 5 sense-organs. Our eyes through which we see photons. Our ears through which we hear or "see" molecules. Our tongue through which we taste or "see" molecules and our sense of touch through which we feel or "see" larger particles (with our skin we also feel smaller particles like photons and molecules in the form of warmth and cold). But we also feel inside. We feel our stomach and intestines when we ate something wrong. We feel our veins (in our head) when we have a headache. But we also feel gravity, which is external, like we feel photons (with our eyes and skin) and molecules (with our ears, nose, tongue and skin). You can say that we have a sixth sense that senses gravity (and inertia), because on the moon our arms feel less heavy when we hold our arms up because the gravity on the moon is smaller. How is it possible that our arms register gravity? How is it possible that gravity pushes your arm to the earth? Gravity is, of course, an enormous force. The Mount Everest pushes with an enormous force on the underlying basis. Think of the enormous force in the underlying basis that must be at work to prevent the underlying basis of the Mount Everest from shrinking together.
If a magnet hangs on a fridge door then according to current conventional science no work is done to keep the magnet on its place, even though gravity pushes the magnet constantly to the earth. Also no work is done to prevent the underlying basis of the Mount Everest from shrinking together according to current conventional science. Of course something does a certain amount of work to prevent the mountain from collapsing. Of course somewhere a certain amount of energy comes in to counteract gravity. Of course somewhere a certain amount of energy comes in to prevent a magnet from falling from the fridge door. Something does work. Some kind of work is done with respect to atoms under the Mount Everest. Atoms under the Mount Everest with an enormous amount of mass above them that pushes with an enormous force on the underlying atoms. Something does work and I suppose that this work is done by very small particles that come from outer space and which make sure that the atoms remain stable and keep a certain volume. There is a lacuna in conventional physics where it comes to the concept work. I come back on this further on. (Conventional science says that the Mount Everest does not collapse because of the electromagnetic force, which is very much stronger than gravity. However, just as with the magnetism that makes a magnet hang on a fridge door: somewhere energy must come from to counteract gravity. There must be something that does work.)
According to conventional science no work is done either when an object moves with a constant speed along a straight (imaginary) line through the universe. Imagine that the earth detaches itself from the sun and our galaxy and that it moves through intergalactic space with a constant speed (for instance 30 km a second) without changing direction. What causes the earth to keep on the same straight path with a constant speed? Nothing, says conventional science, because it is just inertia that makes the object move on with the same speed in a straight line, because that is a law of physics. Conventional science has no explanation and so scientists call uniform motion a law of physics. However, inertia is caused by a certain force. During its journey through intergalactic space the earth may bump into a lost pebble or into an atom. If there is no force that causes the earth to stay on the same track with the same speed then a pebble or an atom would bring the earth to a hold or would even make the earth move in the opposite way. Hence there must be something that propels the earth with an enormous force. What can this be? Within conventional science one speaks of gravity and inertia, but not about how gravity and inertia do what they do. Also concerning gravity and inertia there is an enormous lacuna within conventional science.
The Higgs-particle and inertia
According to modern conventional theories the whole universe is immersed in a Higgs-ocean that has an interaction with quarks and electrons and hence gives all objects inertia. (But not to photons according to conventional science, because photons would have no mass and therefore go unimpeded through the Higgs-ocean.) The Higgs-ocean is supposed to bring the inertia that makes your body feel acceleration. However, the Higgs-field only exercises a force when objects accelerate or slow down according to conventional science, only then the Higgs-field shows its presence. An object moving with a constant speed over a straight (imaginary) line does not interact with the Higgs-ocean. Conventional scientists think that without the Higgs-ocean all quarks and electrons would look like photons and would be without any mass. Conventional science does not explain how the Higgs-ocean brings inertia when quarks and electrons accelerate or slow down. This means that the force that causes inertia has been given a name (Higgs-field), but nothing has been explained. The force that makes a teacup fall to the earth got a name (gravity), but the name did not explain anything. The force that causes inertia got a name too (Higgs-field), this name too does not explain anything. Inertia too is a name that does not explain anything. Inertia is the name for the force that gives resistance to an object when the object is accelerated. Giving this resistance a name does not explain anything.
Conventional scientists think that Higgs-fields are made out of Higgs-particles. They hope to prove the existence of the Higgs-particle experimentally within a short time, but there is a problem. Already in the eighties of the twentieth century millions of dollars were spent on tracking down the Higgs-particle and already a decennium ago not finding the Higgs-particle was considered to be a problem. Perhaps the Higgs-problem awaits the same as the so-called proton decay that was supposed to happen decennia ago. Conventional models predicted proton decay. The life of a proton was estimated to be 1033 years. So scientists watched many (like 1033) protons at the same time and waited for protons to decay. In the seventies and eighties millions of dollars were spent to measure this, but it was a failure, no proton decay was measured. Hence new models were developed that did not predict proton decay.
One could think of a come back of the ether with a Higgs-ocean full of Higgs-particles. However, according to conventional models the Higgs-ocean has no influence at all on the speed of light. Therefore the Higgs-ocean is something different than the ether which has a very strong influence on the speed of light and even determinates it (I come back on this later).
Theoretical calculations by conventional scientists show that it must be possible to measure Higgs-particles with the high-energy collisions that will take place in the Large Hadron Collider, which is build now in Geneva and ready in November 2007. Many conventional scientists think that if the Higgs-particle will not be found by the Large Hadron Collider then the thirty years old theoretical framework of particle physics should be changed drastically.
Next to this there are many experiments going on to measure the so-called WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) which should explain dark matter. Also these WIMPS may turn out to be unfindable (dark matter easily can be explained in a different way; I come back on this later.)
Newton and Mach
Aristotle thought that vacuum could not exist because a body in vacuum would have no resistance (= no inertia) and hence every force would bring the body to an infinite speed. In intergalactic space there is vacuum as we think of vacuum today: no or hardly molecules or atoms. However, this was not what Aristotle meant with vacuum. What Aristotle meant with vacuum was nothing at all, so also no (much) smaller particles than atoms or photons that we do not know (yet). Perhaps one day it turns out that Aristotle was completely right here. Something like vacuum indeed may not exist because with (nothing at all) vacuum one can get that an earth-like object travelling through intergalactic space with a constant speed of 30 km a second over a straight line is stopped by a pebble carelessly thrown away by an astronaut. What can it be that causes inertia? And: what can it be that presses our earth so strong together by gravity?
Isaac Newton (1642-1726) supposed that there was something like "absolute space". How is it possible that the earth is flattened at its poles? Because spinning matter (like at the equator) wants to move on a straight line but can't because the (spinning) matter of the earth is hold together by gravity. That is why the earth has its biggest diameter at the equator and is a bit flattened at the poles. What causes matter at the equator wanting to move on a straight line? That is the same as an object moving trough intergalactic space over a straight (imaginary) line with a constant speed. Newton said: "Absolute space causes uniform motion." But Newton never said how it was done by absolute space.
Where Newton said that uniform motion is caused by (absolute) space Ernst Mach (1838-1916) said that uniform motion is caused by (all) matter. Mach suggested that inertia can be related to all matter in the universe. According to Mach one only feels an acceleration when one is accelerated relative to all (or at least a great part of the) matter in the universe. But like Newton also Mach did not explain how this matter did what Mach suggested it to do. According to Mach stars (now: galaxies) at a distance of many light years (in Mach's time people only had knowledge of stars) provide a force that makes an object go through space with a constant speed over a straight line. Hence there is something for Newton's suggestion to say too, for the object goes trough space and something in space causes inertia. Perhaps both Newton and Mach are partly right. Perhaps galaxies at enormous distances provide something to be in space that causes inertia.
There is a striking resemblance between ether and inertia. Ether causes light to move over a straight line with constant speed. Inertia causes an object in space to move over a straight line with constant speed. Imagine a photon has mass and is a particle. Then one can suppose that the substance that causes inertia also causes the propagation of light. Perhaps this way ether and inertia one day can be united.
The rejection of the ether is based on "if we don't measure it, it isn't there". The theory of special relativity was based on explaining experiments with light in such a way that no ether was needed, for no ether was measured. However, there may be many effects that have been measured that suggest there may be an ether as you can read further on (I think all measurements and observations that "prove" the theory of relativity can be explained more simply and more coherent with an ether theory). But there is something else too. With his theory of general relativity Einstein too launched something that was not measured: spacetime, also something hypothetical of which we don't know if it is really there. Spacetime is as hypothetical as ether. In a way Einstein re-introduced the ether with his introduction of spacetime, but now with a "relativity coat" in which time was a fourth dimension. The hypothetical absolute space and hypothetical absolute time of Newton were united in the hypothetical absolute spacetime by Einstein.
Something in space does something, for instance causing gravity and inertia. Perhaps things can become clearer if we think about how gravity and inertia do what they do without using difficult concepts like absolute space, absolute time, absolute spacetime or ether.
Looking at ourselves as humans we can say that our body especially interacts with the environment in two ways. One way is something we do 24 hours a day: breathing. We continually breath air so our blood can take in oxygen and take away carbon dioxide via our lungs. Also we eat and drink solid and liquid food, hence our blood can take in water and nutrients via our intestines. To be able to live we need a continued interchange with our environment, making sure we keep existing and don't crack up. All organisms we know need interchange with their environment: mice, fish, birds, plants, worms, insects and bacteria. Interchange provides the energy to exist. There is also something that continually puts energy into our earth which causes the earth to be a sphere of matter that stays together: gravity. Also there is something that continually puts energy in atoms which causes the different parts of the atomic nucleus to stay together and makes sure the atomic nucleus does not fall apart. Could it be that continually very many small particles go in and out an atom? Could it be that an atom instantaneously explodes when this would not happen? Perhaps that heavy atomic nuclei on earth with many positively charged protons, are kept together by all kind of particles, which come from outside the earth from all sides and therefore keep protons in the nuclei together in the atom by pushing the protons to each other (this also has been suggested by others2). Could it be that atoms continually absorb all kind of small particles and at the same time send out (other) small particles? We know sunlight does something that can be compared with this a little bit. Sunlight that falls on a landscape is a continuous flow of very many photons that fall on trees, houses, roads, bushes and grass. Everywhere the photons fall they are absorbed so everything is warmed by the sun. But at the same time the whole landscape sends out photons in all kind of colours (not because of warmth but because of the colours of the objects on which the sunlight falls; next to that the objects radiate photons because of the warmth of the objects, photons we don't see with our eyes but do see, in a way, with a night spectacle). Of course sunlight photons don't prevent the atomic nuclei of a landscape from exploding. The point I want to make here is that the landscape absorbs many small particles (i.e. photons) and sends out (and reflects) small particles (i.e. photons). Our blood takes in molecules and atoms via our lungs and intestines. Very many molecules and atoms. If you drink a glass of water you take in 1025 water molecules. Molecules are very small and photons are even much smaller, but perhaps there are even much smaller particles than photons, particles that exist in even much bigger numbers than photons. And perhaps that very large numbers of very much smaller particles than photons are very important for atoms to "survive". Perhaps very small particles are very determining for the existence of the very compact (potential unstable) nucleus in atoms (unstable because of all positive charged protons that repel each other). Very small particles may be very determining too for the behaviour and movement of electrons in an atom.
If such small particles exist than of course it may be possible that such particles that go in out atoms may need even smaller particles to keep stable themselves. And also such smaller particles may need even smaller particles to make sure that such smaller particles keep stable themselves, etc. If we suppose that this is the case then how can we explain inertia? My extensive hypothesis is: there are small particles that go in and out atoms, and even smaller particles that go in and out those small particles, and even more smaller particles that go in and out those smaller particles, etc. The most simple variant of this extensive hypothesis is: there are very small particles (gravitons or gravity particles) that go in and out of atoms. Before I give an explanation of inertia, I will explain gravity with this most simple variant.
Pushing gravity and inertia
Conventional science takes its basic view on gravity from the theory of general relativity. Conventional scientists say that an object like the earth bends spacetime which causes gravity. They also take the view that a mass object produces gravity waves that propagate themselves with the speed of light. Electromagnetic waves, sound waves and water-waves propagate through space, but gravity waves propagate in space, for they are propagating disturbances of the geometry of space itself. But nobody knows what this space is. It is something, that is all they know, one can say that in this respect Einstein's absolute spacetime is no progress relative to Newton's absolute space. Conventional science has no real explanation why gravity does what it does. Right now enormous amounts of money are spend to measure gravity waves. I give it a good chance that no gravity waves will be measured, it makes me think of the Higgs-particle, proton decay and WIMPS.
Suppose that (in an infinite universe) a small particle (the gravity particle) goes in and out of matter (for instance atoms). Then all matter in the universe continually sends out small particles as well as it absorbs particles. This way very many small particles move to the earth from outer space from all sides. The largest part of those particles will pass through the earth without hitting anything, but a certain part of those particles collide with a subatomic particle and will be absorbed. Hence one can suggest that the earth is pushed together by small particles that come from all sides. Why then is a teacup pushed to the earth and not away from the earth? Small particles that collide with a subatomic particle in the earth won't push the teacup away from the earth. Hence there are more particles that push the teacup towards the earth than there are particles that push the teacup away from the earth. A number of the (possible extremely many billions of) small particles that come from the other side of the earth will be absorbed by the earth (hence the earth is pushed together) and so less particles push the teacup away from the earth than there are particles that push the teacup towards the earth. This way gravity can be explained very simply and this way gravity should not be seen as an attracting force but as a pushing force. That is why the here mentioned way of looking at gravity is called pushing gravity. In the same way it can be explained why the sun and the earth are pushed towards each other (figure 10) and also why galaxies are pushed towards each other.
Figure 10. Gravity particles push the mass of the earth and the sun into spheres and push the earth and the sun towards each other.
The first who suggested this idea was Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753), a contemporary of Isaac Newton (1642-1726). Newton heard about the idea but rejected it because he thought that gravity should be explained as the work of God. Also other contemporaries of Fatio did not approve Fatio's idea about gravity. Later it was Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) who thought up the same explanation of gravity, but then soon found out that the concept already was developed by Fatio2. The last decennium more and more scientists explain gravity with the pushing gravity concept2,3.
Thus very small particles, which I call gravity particles, may cause gravity. Perhaps multiple kinds of particles cause gravity, but for reasons of simplicity I suppose here that it is only one particle, the hypothetical gravity particle, that causes gravity. This way one can explain that stones, which pass and go to the earth over (imaginary) straight lines (see figure 11), are bend towards the earth because they are pushed towards the earth by gravity particles. For reasons of simplicity I suppose here that the earth is standing still.
Figure 11. Stones that pass the earth are bend towards the earth (which stands still) by gravity particles (not drawn).
I use figure 11 as an introduction to explain inertia. An object that moves with a constant speed over an (imaginary straight) line in intergalactic space will also deal with gravity particles that come from all sides towards the object. One may think that because the particles rush from all sides towards the object the particles will have no net effect. However, perhaps the particles do have an effect if the object moves.
Figure 12. An object speeds through intergalactic space. From all sides the same amount of gravity particles rush towards the object. The drawn point in the object presents a subatomic particle in which gravity particles can collide.
Next to the hypothetical gravity particles that go in and out matter I suggest here even smaller particles that can go in and out gravity particles. In figure 12 I drew a point (in the object) that presents a subatomic particle in which gravity particles can collide. This subatomic particle is drawn again in figure 13. For reasons of simplicity it is supposed that from all sides the same amounts of gravity particles rush towards this point/subatomic particle and that the subatomic particle stands still in the atom in which it is. The object drawn in figure 12 does not stand still, but moves with 30 km a second through intergalactic space. That is why the subatomic particle in figure 13 moves with 30 km a second to the right.
Figure 13. Gravity particles collide from all sides into a subatomic particle.
Now I ask you to take figure 11 in your mind. In figure 13 there are smaller particles (not drawn in figure 13) that go in and out gravity particles, so in figure 13 the paths of gravity particles are bend (not drawn) by those smaller particles like the path of the stones are bend by gravity particles in figure 11. In figure 14 this is shown for gravity particles that approach the subatomic particle from behind (gravity particles that come from other sides are left out).
Figure 14. Gravity particles that come from behind a subatomic particle are bend towards the subatomic particle by smaller particles (not drawn) than gravity particles.
From all sides gravity particles will be bend by smaller particles in figure 14, so no net force remains one may think. However, the subatomic particle moves with 30 km a second to the right and therefore the (in figure 14 drawn) gravity particles that come from the left will have more time to be pushed by smaller particles towards the subatomic particle. This way one may suppose that more gravity particles collide from behind into the subatomic particle than in front. Hence it can be explained why continually a force is working on a moving object, a force we have named inertia.
With this hypothesis Newton was right: space does it (i.e. cause inertia), though one can say that it is not really space that does it, small particles in space do it. But also Mach was right. Mach who said that all matter (in the form of stars) causes inertia. However, in the above mentioned hypothesis it is not really matter in the form of stars that causes inertia: small particles coming from matter in the form of stars cause inertia. Both Newton and Mach were partly right with the above mentioned hypothesis.
For the explanation of gravity I needed one hypothetical small (gravity) particle. For the explanation of inertia I need two hypothetical particles (a gravity particle and a smaller particle). (However, perhaps every smaller particle needs an even smaller particle to propagate itself. The universe may be infinite in space, but also infinite in ever smaller particles.) The above mentioned explanation of inertia links with Aristotle's point of view that vacuum does not exist, for then a small push would make objects move extremely fast (in vacuum). One may also think that vacuum can not exist because there are always smaller particles to be found. Perhaps extremely small particles fall through atoms or gravity particles or even smaller particles in enormous numbers without hitting anything. With always even smaller particles every extremely little volume of space always will be filled with enormous numbers of even smaller particles.
We already know a particle that can fall through atoms: the photon (for instance radio waves). However, particles like gravity particles and even smaller particles most probably will be smaller than photons. Such very small particles then will fill the whole universe (perhaps gravity particles but possibly also other even smaller particles that may enable photons to propagate themselves through space). Both gravity and inertia may be explained by hypothetical small particles and hence both gravity and inertia can be seen as an ether effect (ether effect = a physical phenomenon that is caused by ether, i.e. hypothetical small particles). The fact that the earth is a sphere that does not explode can be seen as an ether effect. We can exist as humans because the atoms in our body do not explode. Hence we may thank our existence to the ether. Our existence therefore can be seen as an ether effect.
Always even smaller particles?
It may be so that there always ought to be even smaller particles, for also the smallest particle must be able to move without the possibility of getting an infinite speed (i.e. according to Aristotle's view that there can not exist vacuum). Perhaps that every particle (how ever small it is) must have a certain inertia. But it also may be that eventually every (smallest) particle collides into another (smallest) particle and that without any particle having an infinite speed other (smallest) particles can not get an infinite speed either. So perhaps there is something like "the smallest particle" or elementary particles. Though, perhaps it is impossible to find out whether a certain particle is elementary or "the smallest". Perhaps too it is impossible to find out whether or not it is impossible to find out if something like a smallest particle exists or can exist.
Conventional science considers the electromagnetic force, weak force, strong force and gravitational force to be the four fundamental forces.
The electromagnetic force is mediated by photons. Conventional science thinks that gravity is mediated by the hypothetical gravitons. So far the graviton has not been proven experimentally. (According to super string scientists the graviton is a low-energy vibration pattern with zero mass. Conventional scientists think that photons have no mass either. However, conventional scientists can not think different because the smallest mass would give a photon infinite energy according to the formulas of the theory of relativity. The same goes for gravitons.) Like photons and gravitons are believed to mediate the electromagnetic force and gravity, mesons and W bosons are believed to mediate respectively the strong force and weak force. The existence of mesons and W bosons has been shown experimentally. However, how photons, gravitons, mesons and W bosons convey forces is unknown.
Within conventional particle physics one speaks of elementary particles (which do not exist of smaller particles) on one hand and mediators that convey forces on the other hand. However, one can also take the line that there are particles (which exist of smaller particles, which exist of smaller particles, etc.) that are pushed by smaller particles (which are pushed by smaller particles, which are pushed by smaller particles, etc.). It may be that there are no elementary particles, i.e. no particles that do not exist of even smaller particles. Perhaps it is very logical to look at it this way (next to the idea that one always may need smaller particles to preclude vacuum and to preclude non-inertia for the smallest particle). If one really would have an elementary particle then there would be a certain volume of space that would be completely massive and completely filled up and how then one should comprehend such a completely-massive-completely-filled-up volume of space? The standard model for atomic particles suggests particles that have a certain (very small) volume (and at the same time they have not, because they are point particles; however, a smallest particle should have something of a volume, or else it is nothing) and which are elementary and hence indivisible. Such point particles still ought to have a certain volume and then what is in that volume? I do not see the "small particles" that I write about as point particles. I see them as particles that are, like atoms, made out of smaller particles, which are made out of smaller particles, etc. This way one can never speak of point particles or elementary particles. If there are always smaller particles to be found then point particles or elementary particles do not exist. However, it very well may be impossible to proof that there is always a smaller particle to be found or to proof that a certain particle is a point particle or an elementary particle (just as it may be impossible to proof that the universe is infinite in space of in time).
A piece of metal is very massive to us. That is, very massive at first sight. All scientists agree that a piece of metal is not massive at all, the largest part of the metal exists out of nothing. Perhaps this goes for all particles. Perhaps the smallest particle one knows always exists of even smaller particles (and so a particle is never completely massive and completely filled up). Of course an infinite number of ever smaller particles is hard to imagine, but exactly the same goes for an infinite universe in which there is always something new to be found if one goes further away.
Current conventional physics sees the electromagnetic force, weak force, strong force and gravitational force as the four forces that exist in the universe. How will people look at this over two thousand year? We now see it as a bit weird that the Greek Empedocles thought that everything was made out of earth, water, air and fire. We know now that it is different, but 500 years BC it was very normal to think this way. Perhaps in the far future we look at the electromagnetic force, weak force, strong force and gravitational force too as an antique irrelevant way of looking at nature. When there are smaller particles and even smaller particles than nature is much more subtle and different than scientists think right now.
The earth has such strong gravity that it retains oxygen molecules. Gravity particles (if they exist) push oxygen molecules towards the earth. Could it be that there are smaller particles that push gravity particles towards nuclei of atoms (or towards protons or quarks) when gravity particles come close enough to the nuclei? This way one can imagine how atomic nuclei may absorb gravity particles, i.e. comparable with a gold atom that travels through our solar system and then is retained by our earth because of gravity particles (of course it will be very different mechanically, but perhaps one can draw a parallel in this respect). The earth is formed by gravity particles that push all the atoms into one sphere. Perhaps certain subatomic particles are formed by smaller particles than gravity particles which push very many particles (like gravity particles) into spheres/subatomic-particles.
Around the earth is a layer of air molecules (the atmosphere) which is pushed towards the earth by gravity particles in the case of pushing gravity. Perhaps there is some kind of layer of gravity particles around the earth, gravity particles that are pushed towards the earth by smaller particles (than gravity particles). Perhaps there is also some kind layer of such even smaller particles (than gravity particles) around the earth, smaller particles that are pushed towards the earth by even smaller particles.
The two slit experiment
If light falls on a plate with two parallel slits in it and further on a screen is placed, as shown in figure 15, then one gets stripes of light and darkness on the screen.
Figure 15. Light falls through a plate with two slits and brings stripes of light and darkness. (This was not the right picture, an interference pattern looks different. It does not matter much for the story though. Eit, May 16 2008)
It is thought that photons coming from the two slits interfere with each other and therefore sometimes black out each other and sometimes intensify each other. Current conventional science thinks that this is the reason why a bundle light in the two slit experiment brings stripes of light and darkness. Also waves of water can interfere with each other. At the end of the nineteenth century the interference of light in the two slit experiment was seen as proof for the wave-character of light. However, if one thinks of a photographic plate on which a photon falls which brings a chemical reaction one may think of a particle. Light can be seen as a wave as well as a particle and this has been a puzzle for scientists for more than a century and it still is a puzzle. Scientists still don't know if a photon is a particle or a wave.
Suppose there is something like gravity particles or other very small (and very fast, faster than light) particles which we don't know and which are needed by photons to propagate themselves. One can imagine that a photon propagates itself like a water-wave in the ocean: particles pass on the wave. A photon may be the passing on of energy in an ocean of gravity particles (or an ocean of other small particles). The photon is in that case a wave. But one can also think of an iron atom that moves through interstellar space: the iron atom moves itself as a particle. An iron atom is an assemblage of protons, neutrons and electrons. One can imagine a photon as an assemblage of gravity particles (or an assemblage of other small particles). This way one may see a photon as a particle. (If one looks at a photon this way then there must be something that holds the small particles together. Hence one can suppose that there must be other smaller particles that push the small particles together.)
One photon, atom or electron at the time in the two slit experiment gives an interference pattern too. This is the big enigma of the two slit experiment. One can send one electron a day through the two slits and then still one gets an interference pattern (or stripes where a lot of electrons fall on the screen and stripes where little electrons fall on the screen). The two slit experiment with one electron at the time came as a shock in the twenties of the twentieth century and had a profound effect on the foundations of physics. Somehow a particle like an electron had a wave-quality. It made Max Born come with the probability wave in 1927, which would become the foundation of quantum mechanics. Measuring a constant speed of light contributed a lot to the origin of the theory of relativity. Measuring one-electron-at-the-time in the two slit experiment contributed a lot to the development of quantum mechanics.
An atom is a particle. How can an atom interfere with itself? It can be easily explained with an ocean of small particles that we do not know (yet), particles like gravity particles or even smaller particles. In that case an atom, electron or photon that passes one of the slits may make the "ocean of small particles" vibrate and hence waves in the ocean of small particles go through the other slit and interfere with the atom, electron or photon later, which then brings the interference pattern (this has also been brought up by other scientists2). This way interference patterns can be seen as an ether effect.
If in the one-at-the-time-photon-two-slit-experiment photons interfere with waves in the "ocean of small particles" then there is a chance that photons in a bundle of light do the same. In other words: perhaps that in such a bundle of light photons do not interfere with each other, perhaps photons in a bundle of light too interfere with the small particles ocean.
Research has been done concerning what happens in the two slit experiment with one-at-the-time-electrons if one measures through which slit the electron goes: the interference pattern vanished. This was considered as a confirmation of quantum mechanics, because with "watching" things got disturbed. However, in the experiment scientists "watched" with relatively big particles (photons). This did not disturb the paths of the electron (much), but perhaps it did disturb the "waves through the small particle ocean" which possibly go through the other slit and later interfere with the electron.
We know that atoms and electrons are particles that have a certain wave-quality. So perhaps atoms and electrons vibrate and therefore may make "the ocean with small particles" vibrate. But perhaps this can be done by a photon too, even if a photon turns out to be a particle. How can one imagine a photon to have a wave-quality if a photon is a particle? Electrons are particles which move in a circle in a magnetic field as shown in figure 16.
Figure 16. Electron moving within a magnetic field.
Perhaps that photons in a magnetic field cause the electron to move in a spiral as in figure 16. If photons are particles that move in and by a field of gravity particles (or a field with even smaller or other small particles) then one may imagine that the photons move like electrons in a magnetic field as shown in figure 16. This way a photon can be seen as a particle with wave-qualities (the idea of a photon as a particle that moves as shown in figure 16 comes from J.L. Gaasenbeek, Toronto, Canada, who put this idea on the internet).
Polarity of light causes certain photons to go through a certain horizontal (or vertical) slit but not through a vertical (respectively horizontal) slit. Perhaps the circle of the photon (as shown in figure 16) is an ellipse, which may cause the polarity of a photon, because the ellipse of one photon may be more at right angles to a slit than the ellipse of another photon.
An atom that emits a photon may emit a certain amount of mass (a photon) that starts rushing through intergalactic space as a circling electron as shown in figure 16, the photon as a particle. However, perhaps too that an atom emits a photon (or rather: causes a photon) by moving a certain amount of the "ocean of small particles" which makes that a certain wave goes through the ocean with small particles, a bit like water-waves go through the real oceans on earth.
I tend to see the photons as a particle, but we simply don't know. Perhaps it is completely different than the two here mentioned options.
The uncertainty principle and the wave function in quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics state that one can never determinate place and speed of certain particles (like electrons and photons) at the same time as you can measure place and speed of a driving car. This is because when you measure very small particles (like electrons and photons) you disturb the path of the electron or photon when you "watch" with photons. A car's path is not disturbed by photons when you flash the car with a camera, but an electron's or photon's path does get disturbed when "watched" with photons. However, when there are much smaller and faster particles than photons with whom you can "watch" then the whole story becomes completely different.
Quantum mechanics is largely build on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the more accurate you know the place of a particle the less accurate you know its speed and the more accurate you know the speed of a particle the less accurate you know its place. The formulas of quantum mechanics therefore are calculations of the chance one has to come across a certain particle at a certain place with a certain speed.
Scientists have photons as the smallest particles they can measure with, that is why there is always trouble, in a way, when measuring very small particles. It is a bit like trying to determine place and speed of a tennis ball by hitting the tennis ball with other tennis balls (without having the disposal of photons or other particles to determine place and speed of the tennis ball). One has the same problem when one tries to determine place and speed of subatomic particles with photons. This is why within quantum mechanics scientists calculate with the probability that a certain particle is found with a certain speed at a certain place. This can be considered normal, but something strange came up. The formulas of quantum mechanics say that if you find a particle at a certain place, you can not say a thing about the place where the particle was a very small fraction of a second before. It is hard to imagine that if one finds an electron in an atom at a certain place the electron wasn't very close to that certain place a very small fraction of a second before. Take the time-interval small enough and my guess is that the electron will be very close to the spot where it was found. According to quantum mechanics the electron can be found everywhere a fraction of a second before, even in the Andromeda galaxy which is 2 million light years away from us (the chance you find the electron there is very small of course).
Something else within quantum mechanics that bothers a lot of scientists is the collapse of the wave function. The quantum mechanical probability-wave is everywhere but collapses as soon as a photon hits a photographic plate and is absorbed by the plate. Before the absorption there was a chance one could find the electron everywhere, but during the absorption by the plate suddenly the chance has become zero everywhere, except where the photon is absorbed (the absorption-information therefore must turn up in the Andromeda galaxy within a fraction of a second). This collapse of the wave-function is something that is not understood by physicists and they see it as a major problem. David Bohm (1917-1992) solved the problem by suggesting that the wave-function of a particle is something that really exists next to the existence of the particle. This comes close to the above described theory with waves going through oceans of small particles. According to Bohm's theory very fast (faster than light) transactions between particles at enormous distances from each other are possible. Bohm too took the line that if you find a particle somewhere you know that the particle was at the same (not exactly the same) spot a fraction of a second before. Bohm too did not think of particles or waves like Bohr did, but of particles and waves (which is also the case with photons/electrons as shown in figure 16).
Bohm's opponents thought that it was not right to take the line of a really existing wave (though the probability-wave in quantum mechanics gives a description of matter, it is not supposed to be a physical existing entity within quantum mechanics). They neither did not like the idea of "faster than light" action. Physicists in general are allergic for things that oppose Einstein's theory of relativity.
The theory of relativity does not allow that something that once moved slower than the speed of light accelerates to a speed faster than light. Current conventional scientists see particles that always have travelled faster than light as something that the theory of relativity allows (they have to accept this, because in big bang cosmology the universe explodes in the first fraction of a second with a velocity much faster than the speed of light; in other words: according to conventional scientists spacetime is able to move faster than light). However, on the other hand: the theory of relativity does not allow information to go faster than light.
Twenty years ago an experiment was done that hints that there may be something like a super fast super small particle. There are pairs of particles that are physically entangled. Alain Aspect separated the particles and checked if the particles after separation still were physically entangled (the particles were that much separated that no photons or something with the speed of light could forward a signal). It turned out that if you separate the two particles/photons by letting them, let's say, fly away from each other for a million years they still remain physically entangled, which is not understood by physicists. Perhaps this can be explained by a very small particle (much smaller than a photon) that travels much faster than light. It is not that measuring one photon forces the other (a million years away) photon to change some kind of property. Instead of that the photons are physically attached so that even after having been separated from one another for a million years the two photons are still to be considered as parts of one physical entity. This kind of experiments seems to suggest that there may be something that operates with a speed that is faster than light. However, there is no general accepted conclusion about this yet. If there are smaller particles than photons, for instance gravity particles or even smaller particles, then, of course, one may suspect that such particles may have a much bigger speed than photons.
An electron knows no place, has no place, it only has a chance to be somewhere, and that is all we can say about an electron, that is, according to quantum mechanics. If we ever succeed in measuring with much smaller particles (smaller and faster particles than photons) then Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be thrown away and then quantum mechanics will come to look very different. Because then place and speed of photons or electrons can be measured at the same time with much smaller particles than photons, smaller particles which do not disturb the path of photons and electrons. Of course, the same problem of disturbance then will show up when one wants to measure place and speed of the smaller particles. However, the uncertainty principle then will not show up again as we know it now. The uncertainty principle as we know it now has something absolute. This "absolute"-thing disappears with the possibility of even smaller (and even faster) particles one may find one day and which then can be used to measure place and speed of the smaller (than photons) particles at the same time. Current conventional science sees photons as the smallest (and fastest) particles with which we can measure and this brings rational rigidness and brought the "absolute"-thing of the uncertainty principle. I come back on this later when I discuss the inflation model by Alan Guth, a model in which the uncertainty principle is displayed as a physical existing entity, not as a (for the time being) limitation of current science to understand and measure particles on a micro level.
In 1948 the Dutchman and physicist Hendrick Casimir came with the Casimir effect. When you put two small plates parallel to each other at a very short distance in vacuum (no-molecules-nor-atoms vacuum) then the plates are pushed towards each other (with a force that is bigger than the gravitational force between the two plates). Within quantum mechanics this is explained with the existence of a limited number of quantum mechanical forms that can be in the small space between the two plates, so there is a push from outside because of the existence of a bigger number of quantum mechanical forms outside. However, perhaps it is possible that between the plates a limited number of particles can exist because such particles may vibrate (by smaller particles that collide into the particles from al sides) and therefore need a certain volume between the two plates to be able to go between the two plates. The Casimir effect therefore can be seen as an ether effect.
Stability of an atom
Perhaps the nucleus of an iron atom (with many positively charged protons) stays together because many small particles, coming from outer space, push the protons and neutrons together like atoms in the earth possibly are pushed together by gravity particles which makes the matter of the earth stay together. Perhaps the nucleus of an iron atom would explode instantaneously without such pushing by very many small particles like the earth may explode instantaneously without pushing gravity particles (explosions because of small particles that come out of atoms or subatomic particles and push matter/particles away from each other).
If there are (very small) particles that push an electron towards an atomic nucleus and also away from it then one can imagine that an electron does not circle around an atomic nucleus in a regular circle or ellipse as the earth orbits the sun. Instead of that one rather may suppose that an electron may be in some kind of layer around an atom in which the electron continually bounces to and fro with a high speed. There may be a parallel with stars in this respect. Red giants are stars with gas at a certain distance from a hot nucleus. The hot nucleus of the star produces photons that push gas from the nucleus away. At the same time the gas is being pushed towards the hot nucleus by gravity (i.e. gravity particles in this paper). The end result of those two forces is a layer of gas at a certain distance of the hot nucleus and in this layer the gas gets high velocities (by "bouncing to and fro"). Perhaps that electrons too are pushed towards the nucleus of an atom by certain particles. Perhaps this causes electrons to "bounce to and fro".
With this to and fro bouncing of electrons in atoms then tremendous forces must be at work, for the to and fro bouncing of electrons then prevents the Mount Everest from collapsing. The Mount Everest pushes with all its weight on the underlying layer with enormous forces. However, the atoms under the mountain stay what they are: empty for the largest part. The electrons that under such pressure just keep on making their "rounds", i.e. keep on "bouncing to and fro", somehow may need very many very small (hypothetical) particles to counteract enormous forces. Small hypothetical particles which we do not know but which possibly continually rush with enormous numbers through almost completely empty atoms then must be able to cause enormous forces when they hit on something that is not empty, for instance an electron or atom nucleus, to be capable of preventing the Mount Everest from collapsing. The fact that the Mount Everest stays upright and does not collapse can be seen as an ether effect.
Very small particles (like gravity particles) that continually stream through everything and that push everything and therefore keep everything stable in atoms may be useful in explaining the stability of atoms. Very small particles that come from outer space in all kind of sizes continually may do enormous amounts of work in order to keep things the way they are on and in the earth. Keeping an atom stable may be compared a bit with gravity particles (or even smaller particles that cause inertia) that possibly keep our solar system stable by pushing gravity (particles push the earth towards the sun) and inertia (particles push the earth in the direction of its speed and hence away from the sun). Small particles (like gravity particles) pushing an electron towards the nucleus of an atom is something that is easy to imagine. It is more difficult to see what may keep an electron away from the nucleus of an atom.
How can one imagine that electrons stay at a certain distance from an atomic nucleus? Especially when one is reminded to the fact that electrons and the nucleus are attracted to each other by different charges? Why don't electrons cling on the nucleus? Perhaps because certain very small particles (like gravity particles) are bend close to the nucleus. This is shown in figure 17: particles that rush along the atomic nucleus are bend and push the electron away from the nucleus.
Figure 17. Small particles (for instance gravity particles) are bend by the atomic nucleus and hence an electron keeps a certain distance from the nucleus.
Thus lens formation by the nucleus (or possibly by parts of the nucleus) suppose smaller particles than the two in figure 17 drawn small particles which are bend. Hence also with this one may need smaller particles which bend/push the particles towards the nucleus (like gravity particles possibly cause photons passing at a short distance of the sun to bend towards the sun). I needed smaller particles (than gravity particles) too when I explained a possible cause of inertia (with figure 14). The stability of an atom can be explained with an ether, hence the stability of an atom can be seen as an ether effect.
An electron is very small compared to the space that is covered by the electron in an atom. So perhaps there ought to be more that makes atom nuclei stay away at a certain distance from one another. Perhaps that atom nuclei (for instance in an imaginary piece of iron under the Mount Everest) also repel each other (partly) because of the in-and-out-going of small particles in the atom nuclei (to counteract the enormous force of the Mount Everest). Such small particles coming out of atom nuclei sooner will collide into other atom nuclei when the atom nuclei come relatively close each other. Atom nuclei then will be hit sooner by small particles flowing out of the atom nuclei. Perhaps this may also partly explain why in a piece of iron the atom nuclei are at the same distance from each other in a metal-grid.
Though, perhaps a metal-grid may also be explained by particles coming from outer space that get a certain corridor when atomic nuclei in the metal sit in rows in the grid. With material that is made out of atoms of the same size (all nuclei of the same size) one will have sooner that such atoms neatly will be in rows which make that big streams of small particles more easily can fall through the metal and by doing so push the (same size) atom nuclei with the same force at their place.
Is the speed of light constant?
In the nineteenth century it was measured that the speed of light appeared to be constant, i.e. 300,000 km a second. Physicists could not explain this until in 1905 Albert Einstein said that one should see it as a law of physics. According to Einstein Newton's absolute space and absolute time were no good. Space and time were relative. According to Einstein space and time adjust themselves in such a way that the observer who measures the speed of light always measures the same speed, in spite of the observers speed. According to Einstein's theory time and space are real physical entities. His theory suggests that the combined speed of an object's movement through space and its movement through time always exactly equal the speed of light. The speed of light is absolute (= always constant relative to everything and everybody) and therefore time and space are relative.
Where did this current conventional physics originate from? From telescopes that one always had to focus the same way when looking to stars, whether one moved with 30 km a second towards the star or, half a year later, with 30 km a second away from the star (i.e. not measuring the out-of-focus effect). That was what was not understood in the nineteenth century and that is what you need to tackle. At the end of the nineteenth century a famous experiment with light was done by Michelson and Morley. This experiment too seemed to point out that light always had the same speed relative to an observer. Also because of this experiment Einstein saw the speed of light as something that was constant relative to everything and everybody1. Dayton Miller repeated the Michelson-Morley-experiment in the twenties and thirties of the twentieth century, but then more accurate. Dayton again and again measured that the speed of light is not always constant relative to everything and everybody. Dayton Miler's experiments probably are the reason that Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for his theory of relativity. However, Miller's experiments and other experiments that suggest that the speed of light is not always constant relative to an observer have been ignored for almost a century by now4. What's more, it turned out that the Michelson-Morley-experiment too showed that the speed of light is not always constant relative to an observer4.
Also the Sagnac effect shows that the speed of light is not always constant relative to an observer. When you send out light to both sides in a circle the two light beams come together at the same time exactly on the other side of the circle. Except when one makes the whole frame turn around fast (the Sagnac effect). Sagnac did his experiments in 1913 and saw it as proof for the existence of the ether and a disqualification of the theory of relativity. Also this experiment is being ignored for a long time by now by conventional physicists.
Trillions of air molecules are pushed by gravity towards the earth. Beneath the atmosphere are molecules and atoms which are pushed into a compact mass we generally call globe. Perhaps pushing gravity particles cause something we call gravity (according to the pushing gravity principle) and perhaps such pushing gravity particles are pushed by even smaller particles (which are pushed by even smaller particles, etc.). Stones, atoms and photons which are close to the earth are being pushed towards the earth, but perhaps gravity particles and even smaller particles too are being pushed towards the earth. Hence there may be a certain sphere of influence around the globe.
Perhaps that somehow something (for instance gravity) makes photons from stars that come into the earth's sphere of influence adjust their speed. In that case such photons possibly come out of the sphere of (gravitational) influence of the sun, as the sun is in the sphere of (gravitational) influence of the Milky Way, the sun which orbits the centre of the Milky Way with 220 km a second, the sun which drags her planets with this speed. Let's, for reasons of simplicity, suppose that photons from stars come into the sphere of influence of the earth via the sphere of influence of the sun (i.e. first photons are dragged by the sun, then by the earth). Let's also assume that photons always have the same speed relative to the sphere of influence they are in. Let's for reasons of simplicity also assume that such spheres of influence (for photons) correspond with gravity fields. The gravity field of the sun (or rather: the gravity field of the sun where the sun is dominant relative to other stars) reaches until much further than Pluto.
Starlight that rushes through our solar system hence may have a speed of 300,000 km a second relative to the gravity field of the sun and a speed of 300,000 km a second relative to the sun when its direction is straight towards the sun. Imagine starlight moving straight towards the earth while the earth moves with 30 km a second towards the starlight (see figure 18). The starlight still is in the sphere of influence of the sun and has a speed of 300,000 km a second relative to the sphere of influence of the sun.
Figure 18. Starlight going straight to the earth which moves towards the starlight.
The photon now has a speed of 300,000 + 30 = 300,030 km a second relative to the earth. However, as soon as the photon comes into the sphere of influence of the earth it will adjust its speed and hence the photon will get a speed of 300,000 km a second relative to the sphere of influence of the earth. The sphere of influence moves together with the earth and hence the photon also has a speed of 300,000 km a second relative to the earth.
If half a year later a photon of the same star moves to the earth then the photon will have a speed of 300,000 - 30 = 299,970 km a second relative to the earth as long as the photon is in the sphere of influence of the sun. The photon then too will get a speed of 300,000 km a second relative to the earth when it comes into the sphere of influence of the earth. If photons somehow adjust their speed to the speed/sphere of influence of the earth then perhaps this can be explained by very small particles that have a certain influence on photons. Perhaps that gravity particles determine the sphere of influence for photons, though there may be other (even smaller or other) particles than gravity particles which cause this sphere of influence for photons. (The earth and the sun rotate, which complicates things, but for reasons of simplicity I leave this out of consideration.)
This way one may explain why starlight always appears to have the same speed relative to the earth, where this may not be the case. If the sphere of influence (for photons) corresponds with the gravity field of the earth then this sphere of influence goes beyond the orbit of the moon (which is attached to the earth by the gravity of the earth). However, the sphere of influence for photons may be close to the surface of the earth. I mention this because experiments have been done (for instance the experiments by Dayton Miller and also some measurements with GPS satellites) which show that also close to the surface of the earth the speed of light is not always constant. So perhaps the sphere of influence of the earth (for photons) is very small and that photons adjust their speed only when they are very close to the earth. Perhaps too a photon not far away from the earth is not in the sphere of influence of the earth, sun nor Milky Way, but in the sphere of influence of all the matter of the universe, a sphere of influence for instance caused by all the gravity particles that go in and out of all the matter of the universe. Hence a photon only may be in the sphere of influence of the earth when the photon is very close to the earth. If so one has to speak of a stationary ether in which photons are most of their time and moving ethers under influence by, for instance, the sun, the earth and the moon (I see such a stationary ether as most likely; in figure 18 I speak about the sphere of influence of the sun, but that was done to explain things in a simple way).
The moon is quite far away from the earth but keeps orbiting the earth because of the gravity of the earth. However, perhaps that with pushing gravity the density of an object too determines the force that works on an object or particle by gravity. Current conventional physicists think that a photon has no mass. I suspect that photons do have a certain mass, perhaps a very little amount of mass distributed over a (relatively) very small volume. Hence a photon may have a very small amount of mass and a very high density. Perhaps this is why a photon only comes into a sphere of influence of the earth (and therefore adjusts its speed) when it is very close to the earth and perhaps it too only enters the sphere of influence of the sun when it is very close to the sun (i.e. when the spheres of influence are determined by gravity).
Of course this is a very simple way of looking. The reality may be much more complicated, but it can be a start of looking completely different at the propagation of light. I am not the only one who came with an ether theory. Other scientists too came with speed-adjusting-photons (i.e. bringing back the ether3). Things already have started up a bit and I think that the internet is greatly responsible for this3.
More ether effects
It does not matter here how far away from earth there still is the sphere of influence of the earth for photons. What matters here is whether or not there is a sphere of influence for photons. If we assume here that a sphere of influence for photons exists then what can we explain with it? The non-existence of the out-of-focus effect and the constancy of the speed of light on earth (these observations can be seen as ether effects), but what else? It also explains the experiments with measuring-instruments that rush very fast towards light sources. The last century very accurate laboratory experiments have been done with measuring-instruments (that measure the speed of light) that move very fast towards (artificial) light sources, and vice versa. Every time the same speed of light was measured. Perhaps this was measured because the photon was in the measuring-instrument the moment the speed of the photon was measured. Therefore the photon may have adjusted its speed very quickly to speed of the (sphere of influence of the) measuring-instrument. In other words: the moment of measuring the photon always has the same (constant) speed relative to the sphere of influence of the instrument, i.e. 300,000 km a second. Perhaps this is why regardless the speed of the measuring-instrument the measured speed of light is always the same, i.e. 300,000 km a second.
Perhaps that the following experiment can bring a confirmation of the here suggested ether theory (see figure 19).
Figure 19. Photons that go through a small tunnel in a (almost) massive tube may have their speed influenced by the movement of the tube.
A photon goes through a (almost) massive tube which moves as shown in figure 19. The speed of the photon may be influenced by the sphere of influence (= ether) of the moving tube. Perhaps that the measured travel time of the photons differ when such a (in vacuum) moving tube goes with a high speed to the left or the right.
I think that like logic time is a product of our brains to get grip on certain things. In my opinion time is not a real physical entity as now is thought in current conventional science. However, when atom clocks in airplanes fly around the world they slow down, as predicted by the theory of relativity. Thus time is something that exists physically, one might say. However, also this effect can be explained with an ether (i.e. small particles which cause light to show certain behaviour). Fast moving clocks may delay because the clocks collide into more small particles (like gravity particles and/or even smaller particles or other particles) and hence the processes in the atom clock slow down. You just can see it as a mechanical thing. If a clock has a higher speed more small particles go through the clock and hence the clock delays.
A clock that is surrounded by an enormous bath with mercury or in an enormous block of lead possibly runs faster than a clock that is not surrounded by mercury or lead. The mercury or lead may cause less small particles to go through the clock. This has been researched, but not enough to come to final conclusions2.
The theory of general relativity suggests that a clock close to the surface of a heavy body like the earth runs slower than the clock that hangs free in outer space. This is called gravitational time dilatation. Clocks on board of satellites (which are much further away from earth than air planes) therefore run faster than clocks on earth. Clocks on board of satellites run 7 microseconds a day slower (compared with clocks on earth) because of time dilatation by speed and 46 microseconds a day (compared with clocks on earth) faster because of gravitational time dilatation. If there are more small particles (like gravity particles) closer to earth (because of pushing by even smaller particles) then there will go more small particles through a clock which is close to earth than through a clock which is further away from the earth like a clock in a satellite. This way gravitational time dilatation can be easily explained as an ether effect.
If smaller particles than gravity particles push gravity particles towards the earth then it may be that there are more gravity particles and/or other particles closer to earth (than in outer space). Gravity particles cause air molecules to be close to earth. Perhaps even smaller particles cause gravity particles to be in greater numbers close to earth (than in outer space). The latter may not be likely to happen the way air molecules are held close to the earth by gravity particles. Perhaps one should rather look at it as: very many gravity particles that are bend towards the earth by even smaller particles like particles are bend in the figures 11 and 14.
Clocks on the ground on the earth run slower than clocks that float in interstellar space. I think this is, as suggested above, because close to the earth there are more small particles. For the same reasons I expect that clocks in interstellar space in the Milky Way will run slower than clocks in the intergalactic space of our Local Group. Also I think that clocks in our Local Supercluster will run slower than clocks in the big voids between the superclusters. I expect that all physicists and cosmologists agree with me that clocks behave this way because clocks run slower when close to (more) matter. I mention this here because I come back on this subject when I discuss cosmological redshift and dark energy.
There are particles called muons which fall apart very fast when produced by scientists. Also muons from outer space fall on earth. Muons from outer space have a bigger speed than the muons we produce on earth and therefore the muons from outer space exist longer. This is seen as proof for the theory of relativity according to which time delays because of the high speed of the muons which therefore exist longer. This is an analog of the famous twin thought-experiment in which one of the twins travels at high speed in his rocket through space. When he comes back on earth he discovers that his twin brother died thousand years ago because of old age. High speed muons collide into more "small particles" and therefore the processes in the muons may slow down which makes the muons fall apart later. Hence it may be the same as with clocks that go around the earth in airplanes with a certain speed. To understand time it may be better to think about processes which delay because of small particles. It may be best to consider the concept time as little as possible.
What happens when in figure 18 the photon enters the sphere of influence of the earth and adjusts its speed with 30 km a second in a short time? The photon will get some kind shock, for adjusting your speed with 30 km a second is not a small thing. A speed of 30 km a second stands for a certain amount of energy.
When the earth moves towards the starlight with 30 km a second then the wavelength of the photon becomes a little smaller because of the speed of the earth. If the earth moves away from the photon with 30 km a second the wavelength of the photon becomes a little longer because of the speed of the earth. This is called the Doppler effect (Doppler redshift). The speed (30 km a second) of the earth towards the photon (if the earth moves towards the photon) causes the photon to change its wavelength: the wavelength of the photon shortens.
You can imagine it as follows. The photon slams into a different sphere of influence that moves to the photon with 30 km per second. You can imagine it as a spring (think of figure 16) that gets pushed (= shorter wavelength) by small particles. However, no energy is given or taken by small particles as is the case with gravitational redshift (comes later).
In case of an ether as suggested in this paper the speed of the photon in figure 18 decreases with 30 km a second, but the total amount of energy of the photon stays the same because the photon gets a shorter wavelength. Therefore I think the Doppler effect can be explained with an ether theory (I come back on the Doppler effect later). The energy of the photon "disappears" because the photon gets a lower speed and this energy has to go somewhere. If a photon falls on earth while the earth moves away from the photon with 30 km a second then the opposite happens: the photon gets a higher speed (relative to the earth when leaving the sphere of influence of the earth) but the total amount of energy of the photon stays the same because the photon gets a longer wavelength.
Stellar aberration explained with an ether theory
Stellar aberration can be explained with the idea that photons go from the sphere of influence (ether) of the sun to the sphere of influence (ether) of the earth (see figure 20). (Instead of the sphere of influence of the sun one may also, as suggested before, be dealing with the domain of influence of the Milky Way, or the Local Supercluster or influence by al the matter of the universe. For reasons of simplicity I take the line that the photon comes from the sphere/domain of influence of the sun in the following reasoning. It does not matter for the discussion here from what sphere/domain of influence the photon comes.)
Figure 20. A photon possibly changes direction when it goes from the sphere of influence of the sun to the sphere of influence of the earth.
A photon comes from a star perpendicular above the plane in which the earth orbits the sun. The photon moves over a (imaginary) line which is perpendicular to the direction of movement of the earth and goes in point D from the sphere of influence of the sun to the sphere of influence of the earth. One can look at the transition of the photon from the sphere of influence of the sun to the sphere of influence of the earth as follows (see figure 21; point D in the figures 20 and 21 is rather a transition area than a point.)
Figure 21. A photon moves perpendicular to the direction of movement of the earth and goes from the sphere of influence of the sun to the sphere of influence of the earth.
The photon travels through the stationary sphere of influence of the sun (a domain of influence that does not really stand still because the sun orbits the centre of the Milky Way, but for reasons of simplicity we can look at the sphere of influence of the sun as stationary here). At a certain moment the photon moves into the sphere of influence of the earth and will be pulled to the right. But at the very moment of transition the photon also still is in the sphere of influence of the sun and wants to continue its path in D. The photon may have a certain amount of inertia and hence it may not move with 30 km a second to the right immediately. Instead the photon may move like a ball of lead that rolls from a stationary band on a band that moves to the right as shown in figure 22.
Figure 22. Ball of lead rolls from a stationary band on a moving band (both bands are horizontal, we look from above).
The ball of lead will be dragged along to the right by the to the right moving band, but the ball's inertia causes the ball to continue its movement in the old direction. Hence the ball moves in a direction as shown in figure 23 (for us, who look from above).
Figure 23. Rolling ball of lead changes its direction of movement because of its transition from a stationary band to a moving band.
Next to inertia there is also something different that may have an effect. At the very moment of transition the rolling ball of lead will still be a little attached to the stationary band which does not allow the ball immediately to go to the right. Hence the stationary band will pull the ball a little to the left and that too may cause the movement of the ball as shown in figure 23. These kind of things may also go for a photon that moves from the sphere of influence of the sun to the sphere of influence of the earth as shown in figure 20. Perhaps inertia plays a role and hence the photon in point D in figure 20 is bend a little, and perhaps the domain of influence of the sun pulls the photon a bit to the left and hence the photon in point D is bend a little (perhaps these two things are the same).
This way it may be that the photon in figure 20 goes from B to A and not from B to C as Bradley suggested.
If experiments indeed show that the photon goes from B to A and not from B to C then the theory of relativity goes down. In that case stellar aberration can be seen as an ether effect and then also a part of quantum mechanics goes down according to the ether explanation of the two-slit experiment. If the theory of relativity goes down big bang cosmology probably goes down too. Big bang cosmology is based on the formulas of the theory of relativity, but also: with an ether theory it is logical that photons slowly give energy to the ether and hence one is less reluctant to accept the tired light hypothesis to explain the stretching of light of far away galaxies (I come back on this later).
There is a fat Nobel Prize waiting for the physicist who can prove experimentally that the photons in figure 20 go from B to A and not from B to C, but I think it won't be an easy job.
Imagine standing on the sun and being able to look with super fast much-faster-than-light particles. The person looks at the photon in figure 20 and: perhaps the person sees that the photon follows exactly the same (linear) path the moment it comes into the sphere of influence of the earth in figure 20. The photon is dragged along to the right by the earth but it also bends to the left because of stellar aberration. Perhaps those two effects compensate each other exactly, and then the observer sees the photon go along a linear path. This would be fine, because this would mean that during their journey through the universe photons don't make all kind of winding roads under the influence of al kind of (local) matter in the universe. However, I give it most chance that during their journey through the universe photons adjust their speed to particles coming from all matter of the universe, i.e. the stationary ether. In that case photons don't make winding roads either and almost always travel over a straight line.
There are three sorts of redshift of (star)light: Doppler redshift, gravitational redshift and cosmological redshift.
In 1842 Christian Doppler, an Austrian physicist, showed that when a sound source speeds towards a hearer the sound of the sound source is higher (shorter wavelength) than when the sound source speeds away from the listener (longer wavelength). In 1848 he predicted that when two stars orbit each other with high speed the same effect could happen with light. According to Doppler the wavelength of light of a star that speeds towards us would be shorter and the wavelength of light of a star that speeds away from us would be longer. Only later scientists could experimentally show that when a light source moves towards us or we move towards the light source the wavelength of the light is shorter indeed, and that the wavelength of the light is longer if light source and observer move away from each other. This is called Doppler redshift.
There may be something funny about the Doppler effect when it comes to sound. Imagine a car that is speeding towards you. The car is honking continually. I think that when you would determinate the sound waves through the air under the bonnet you will measure the normal pitch/frequency of the klaxon (waves), because the air under the bonnet moves along with the car. However, you will hear a higher pitch if you stand still along the road a hundred meters before the (towards you speeding) car. I think that somewhere between the air under the bonnet and the air surrounding you the pitch has changed. Where did that happen? One can imagine that the air outside the car that is just in front of the car is dragged along/pushed forward by the car. Sound waves move from this dragged/pushed air to the stationary air further away from and in front of the car. Perhaps that during this transition the pitch changes.
What I want to suggest here is: could it be that the pitch changes because the sound moves from the moving sound-propagating air to the stationary sound-propagating air? (And that the pitch goes down again when you move away from the car because the sound goes from the stationary air to the air that surrounds you and moves along with you?) So sound may have to adjust itself and hence gets a different frequency? Could a similar kind of mechanism play a role when it comes to light coming from moving stars? So light changes its frequency because it goes from one light-propagating ether to another light-propagating (probably stationary) ether? One gets the same Doppler effect when the earth moves with 30 km a second towards a star (starlight gets shorter wavelength) or with 30 km a second away from a star (starlight gets longer wavelength). I come back here at my explanation concerning the shift towards a shorter wavelength of a photon in figure 18. I suggested that light went from the sphere of influence of the sun (or rather a stationary ether) towards the sphere of influence of the moving earth and by doing so light adjusted itself. I think it would be funny if the Doppler effect with respect to the sound of a car that is speeding towards you can be explained by air that is dragged along/pushed by the car, because then the Doppler effect with respect to sound too can be seen as some kind of ether effect. The layer of air surrounding a driving car then can be seen as the ether that is dragged along while other air between you and the car can be seen as the stationary air. Both the Doppler effect with light as well as with sound hence can be seen as an ether effect.
When light of a star falls on earth (regardless the velocity of the earth) then the light will get a shorter wavelength because of the gravity of the earth. When light moves away from the earth into the solar system it will get a longer wavelength because of the gravity of the earth. This is called gravitational redshift (when a light wave gets a shorter wavelength it is called blueshift instead of redshift; also when a light wave gets a shorter wave length because of Doppler redshift it is called blueshift).
Perhaps that the (hypothetical) gravity particles that cause gravity on earth by pushing a paving-stone to the earth also push against a photon (the gravity particles then should have a higher speed than photons in order to shift a photon that falls on earth blue). If you hold the same paving-stone with your arms in front of you in the air you understand the stone is pushed pretty strongly towards the earth. Hence you need energy to hold up the stone while at the same time gravity particles give energy and push the stone down. But what about the energy given by gravity particles to a photon that falls on earth? What brings the "countering energy"? The energy given/caused by gravity particles to the photon has to go somewhere. The energy is not converted into the speed of the photon, because the speed of a photon in a certain sphere of influence is constant (at least, that is what I suggest). A stone that falls converts the energy of gravity particles into speed, but a photon falling on earth can't do this because the photon keeps the same speed. Perhaps the energy of the gravity particles goes into the photon and hence makes the photon go to a shorter wavelength, or: blueshift. In the same way it can be understood that a photon that moves away from earth into the solar system shifts towards the red. Now the photon too must keep its speed despite all the gravity particles that crash into the photon. This time gravity particles do not give the photon energy but take energy and this energy must come from somewhere and the photon may dig up this energy by shifting towards a longer wavelength, or: redshift. In the case of gravitational blueshift the gravity particles give energy to the photons and in the case of gravitational redshift the gravity particles take energy from photons.
Hence one can explain both gravitational redshift as well as Doppler redshift with gravity particles (or with other perhaps even smaller particles that under influence of gravity particles, i.e. in the case of gravitational redshift, push against the photon, or, in the case of Doppler redshift, help the photon to propagate itself through space).
Gravitational redshift too can be seen as an ether effect. The same goes for cosmological redshift.
Cosmological redshift (z) is used in cosmology to indicate how much photons have shifted towards a longer wavelength during their journey through intergalactic space. Cosmological redshift is calculated with: z = (λ-λ0)/λ0. Here λ0 is the wavelength the starlight had when the light left the star and λ is the wavelength of the starlight the moment it is observed on earth. The galaxy with the largest cosmological redshift has a z-value of z = 6.964 and big bang cosmologists estimate its age at 12.88 big bang year.
With Lemaître's primeval atom in 1927 the big bang model emerged: the model that advocates that the universe once came into existence from a very small point and ever after expanded like an inflated balloon. In such a universe space stretches itself and the light waves in such space stretch themselves along with space, and hence the light of far away galaxies is stretched more when the galaxies are further away. This way big bang cosmologists explain the cosmological redshift: as expansion redshift.
In 1929 Fritz Zwicky suggested that photons may give energy to gravity while travelling through intergalactic space. In 1935 Edwin Hubble and Richard Tolman suggested that cosmological redshift may be caused by a continual loss of energy of photons because of a yet unknown physical process.
Everybody agrees that gravity indeed interacts with photons, or else everybody wouldn't explain gravitational redshift by the interaction of gravity with photons (which does not have to be the case, that is, when smaller particles than gravity particles are bend towards the earth and hence cause gravitational redshift). Of course there is not only gravity near the earth or in the solar system or in the Milky Way. Gravity is everywhere in the universe. During the billions of years that a photon travels through the universe from a far away galaxy to the earth it continually interacts with gravity. This way one can imagine that over billions of years photons very slowly lose energy to gravity and hence cosmological redshift may be caused. (I do not suggest here that cosmological redshift and gravitational redshift are the same.)
For more than 75 years conventional science has explained cosmological redshift with space that stretches and not with Fritz Zwicky's and Edwin Hubble's explanation that a photon may loose its energy during its journey through space (this explanation is called tired light redshift).
Cosmological redshift can be linked to inertia. Imagine a stone that speeds through a large empty area of the universe. It travels over a (imaginary) straight line with a constant speed. Perhaps the stone looses speed very slowly because from all sides gravity particles (and even smaller particles) collide into the stone continually. Perhaps Newton's first law is not correct. Newton's first law suggests that an object moving over a straight line will always keep the same speed when no forces work on the object. However, if there are always smaller particles to be found then there will never be a situation somewhere where no forces work on an object, then there always will be interaction with smaller particles. Perhaps that small particles only can cause inertia if a certain uniform moving object very slowly loses energy to small (inertia causing) particles by very slowly loosing speed.
A photon always keeps the same (light)speed (relative to the sphere of influence in which the photon is, i.e. that is my suggestion). Hence a photon may not very slowly lose speed like a stone (in the case I am right about the stone losing speed very slowly) and perhaps therefore a photon very slowly loses energy to gravity particles (and/or other small particles) by going to a longer wavelength very slowly.
In 1974 Hulse and Taylor discovered that two orbiting pulsars orbit each other a little slower every year. The theory of relativity explains this with gravity waves that would be send out by the pulsars and therefore make the pulsars lose energy. The real reason may be that the pulsars lose energy (orbiting speed) because the pulsars interact with small particles, small particles that very slowly take energy (in the form of speed) of the pulsars.
Distances in the universe
With the tired light explanation one ends up with a very different universe than the big bang universe: a universe that is infinite in space and time. The light of a galaxy with z = 0.6 needed 7 billion years to reach us. Up till a distance of 7 billion years (z = 0.6) the differences between the big bang model (with expansion redshift) and the infinite universe model (with tired light redshift) are not very big. From 7 billion years, or z-values bigger than 0.6 the differences between tired light redshift and expansion redshift increase. Especially from z= 1 the differences become big.
From here in this paper it is supposed that when light from a galaxy needed one billion year to reach us the galaxy is at a distance of one billion light years. In the case of tired light redshift in an infinite universe this is correct, but not in the case of a big bang universe because the big bang universe expands during the billion years the light travels towards the earth. For reasons of simplicity I don't regard this, it does not matter for the here mentioned discussion.
For both the expansion redshift (big bang model) and the tired light redshift (infinite universe model) the distance versus z is (pretty) linear up till z = 0.6 (the accelerated expansion of the big bang universe is not regarded here, but I come back on it later). At higher z-values the expansion redshift distance becomes lower and lower compared with the tired light redshift difference, as shown in figure 24.
Figure 24. The big bang model and the infinite universe model have different distances connected to z-values (this is a raw drawing that is sufficient here, more details with respect to the accelerated expansion of the big bang universe come later).
At higher values than z = 1 we only have the redshift of galaxies and no other indicators to determinate experimentally how far away the galaxies are. Hence one can just as well follow the tired light hypothesis as the expansion hypothesis. (Lately a new way of determinating far away distances came to the front: gamma ray bursts, but this is still in its infancy.) We have been groping in the dark for a long time when it comes to distances of far away galaxies. That is only logical, for you are not talking about small distances. A z = 0.3 galaxy already is at a distance of 3.5 billion light years, which is, of course, an enormous distance. The real distances that are going to be found in the future for galaxies with z = 6 will play an important role where it comes to the survival or ending of the big bang model. Big bang cosmologists calculate the distance of a z = 6 galaxy at almost 13 billion light years, but with tired light one gets a distance of (3.5/0.3) x 6 = 70 billion light years. Of course there is a big difference between a distance of 13 billion light years and 70 billion light years. Also: according to the big bang model the big bang took place 13.7 billion years ago (though recently there have been researchers that claim it may have been 1 to 2 billion years more). It may turn out that big bang cosmologists mistook many far away objects for galaxies, for instance objects at distances of 10 to 13 (big bang) light years. If those objects turn out to be at much longer distances, they probably will turn out to be clusters of galaxies instead of galaxies5. Now already the big bang model has much difficulty to explain the existence of (big) galaxies in the early universe. If it turns out that those galaxies are no galaxies but clusters of galaxies instead the big bang model may have an insurmountable problem.
I think that from a distance of 8 (big bang) light years away big bang cosmologists more and more take clusters of galaxies for galaxies. The next decennia stronger telescopes will look into the universe and I expect that it then will become clear that big bang cosmologists took clusters of galaxies for galaxies in the far away universe.
Type 1a supernovae
The last decennium research was done with type 1a supernovae. Type 1a supernovae can be seen at large distances, at least until z = 1 or 9 billion (big bang) light years. Thanks to the type 1a supernovae observations new distances have been measured of large z-values, distances which so far were very difficult to estimate.
The z-values of the supernovae generally are between z = 0.5 and z = 1.0. Until z = 1 the differences between tired light redshift and expansion redshift are not very big, but perhaps it is possible to make a comparison between tired light redshift and expansion redshift where it comes to distance versus z-value observed by the type 1a supernova. My impression is that this has not been given serious consideration so far. Current conventional science just looks at expansion redshift as the absolute truth because they see the big bang as a fact. (Recently some researchers claim that the distances measured with type 1a supernovae are less accurate than thought so far. Comparison between tired light redshift and expansion redshift may not be that easy.)
The distances found by type 1a supernovae brought a big surprise. The big bang universe showed an accelerated expansion. Big bang cosmologists explained this with (a so far not understood) dark energy which caused the acceleration. However, what exactly was measured by the scientists who observed the supernovae? The supernovae took place in galaxies (z = 0.5 to z = 1.0) that were at a larger distance (measured by observing the strength of the supernovae) than what was expected by the (expansion) redshift of the host galaxies (something one expects to measure with tired light redshift). Next to that it was measured that the cosmological redshift becomes stronger (per unit of time light travels through space) when the light comes from objects that are nearer to earth. When light stretches ever stronger then the big bang universe expands ever stronger. Hence the universe expands accelerated, according to big bang cosmologists.
So what was measured is that cosmological redshift is stronger per light year when the light is closer to earth. How can this be explained with tired light redshift? I wrote before about clocks that run slower on earth than clocks which float in interstellar space. I explain this with clocks colliding into more small particles when the clocks are in a stronger field of gravity (because of more matter). Clocks in a certain part in the universe with more matter therefore will run slower than clocks in a certain part of the universe with less matter. The universe exists of enormous voids without galaxies. Hence the universe exists of places with much matter and places with little matter. With our Milky Way we are in a supercluster, so we are in a place in the universe with relatively much matter. When my explanation regarding a slower running of clocks on earth versus a clock in interstellar space is right and when there are much more small particles closer to earth or closer to matter in general then we are in a place in the universe with relatively many small particles. A clock floating between our Milky Way and our neighbour galaxy the Andromeda Galaxy therefore runs slower than a clock floating in one of the big voids in the universe, a big void which may be billions of years away from us (between superclusters). If cosmological redshift is caused by interaction of photons with small particles as I wrote before then the cosmological redshift may be larger per light year when the photon travels through an area with more small particles. This may be the reason why the cosmological redshift becomes bigger when the light comes from a galaxy that is relatively close to us. The closer the galaxy the bigger in proportion the length the photon travels through the supercluster in which we live. This way it may be easily explained why the cosmological redshift is bigger per (light) year when the light travels through a part of the universe with a higher concentration of matter per unit space-volume. So it may be very logical that in an infinite universe (with tired light redshift) the redshift is higher when the galaxy is closer to earth. The observations with type 1a supernovae that made big bang cosmologists conclude that the universe is accelerated expanding therefore can be seen as an ether effect.
One may wonder why great numbers of small particles cause the processes in an atom clock to slow down and cause light to go to a larger wavelength during its journey through space. Here fore I spoke about a stone travelling with a constant speed over a (imaginary) line through intergalactic space. Perhaps such a stone slowly goes to a lower speed because of interaction with gravity particles (and/or even smaller particles) like each other orbiting pulsars too very slowly may lose speed because of interaction with small particles. Perhaps one has to look at atom clocks too this way: slowing down of particles in atom clocks because of interaction with small particles (like gravity particles). Light too may lose energy to small particles. However, this loss of energy may not translate itself into a lower speed (i.e. when the speed of light is always constant relative to its sphere of influence) but into a longer wavelength. More small particles therefore may cause a higher cosmological redshift per light year.
One too may wonder why muons with a high speed and therefore losing more energy to small particles have their processes slow down. One may think that muons that lose more energy fall apart sooner. When you heat chemical substances (and hence give more energy to those substances) then certain chemical processes sooner occur. Chemical processes slow down when the chemical substances are cooled. Perhaps this way it is easier to understand why muons that lose more energy fall apart later.
In 2000 big bang cosmologist and specialist in the field of cosmological redshift Edward Harrison wrote that in the universe distances further than 100 million light years (z = 0.02) are insecure by minimal a factor two6. This has become better the last decennium with type 1a supernovae, but not much. How far away the galaxies really are, is something that appears to be forgotten in the discussion about dark energy. As if it is not important how far away the galaxies are, but that is the first thing were one comes to talk about when one discusses the big bang universe versus an infinite universe. And this discussion, infinite universe versus big bang universe, is something that will be fought out the next decennium. Perhaps that observations concerning gamma ray bursts can bring some clearing in this respect, because observations with gamma ray bursts have the potency to measure the distances of much higher z-values. The first measurements with gamma ray bursts showed that at much higher z-values the expansion of the (big bang) universe is constant. This is what you expect with tired light redshift, which will become ever more constant at higher z-values because at higher z-values the amount of matter in the total space through which the photons travel will ever more come closer to the average amount of matter per volume space in the universe.
Larger cosmological redshift closer to earth means that objects with high z-values like z = 6 may be even further away than I suggested before. If a light wave goes through big empty voids most of the time it will take longer for such a light wave before the light wave has stretched a certain amount.
With less fast stretching of light in big voids one gets that different distances can belong to the same z-values. If cosmological redshift varies with the density of matter in the universe one will get different distances versus z-values depending on which direction one looks in the universe. Light coming from a big nearby void will give another z-value than light that came from a galaxy at the same distance but which light went through a part of the universe with much matter. Perhaps this can be observed and hence verified.
The observations of the supernovae also brought something else. Big bang cosmologists say that it proves that the tired light theory can not be right. When the redshift is z = 1 this means that the wavelength of the light is twice as long when it falls on earth than when it was emitted billions of years ago. However, not only the light waves are twice as lang. Also the duration of the supernova has become twice as long. A duration of a supernova billions of years ago (at z = 1 distance) of 5 days has become 10 days when the light of the supernova reaches the earth. Big bang cosmologists explain this doubling of the length of the duration of the (z = 1) type 1a supernova next to the doubling of the wavelength of the photons with: if the space (of the big bang universe) becomes bigger then also the distance between each other following individual photons becomes bigger. Big bang cosmologists think that with the tired light hypothesis the duration of the type 1a explosions still should be the same when the supernova is observed on earth, regardless the distance at which the type 1a supernovae took place. However, when you here a bang on earth close by then the duration of the bang is shorter for you than for someone who is at a much larger distance. This is because some air particles collide a little faster than other air particles. The further away the larger the spreading. If, in the case of an ether theory, light propagates itself through space because of small particles then it may be that some photons propagate themselves a little faster than other photons. Perhaps that somehow not all photons cover distances of billions of light years in exact the same time. Perhaps there is a certain spreading and that this spreading keeps step with the amount the photons lose energy very slowly giving the photons a longer wavelength. As air molecules do in the case of sound small particles may cause certain photons to cover the same route a little faster and other photons a little slower. The longer duration of type 1a supernovae that are further away therefore can be seen as an ether effect and as a confirmation of the tired light hypothesis. It certainly does not prove that the tired light hypothesis can not be right (also Edwards came up with this7).
The cosmic background radiation
Both cosmologists supporting an infinite universe as well as cosmologists supporting a big bang universe have predicted the cosmic background radiation. The predictions of the infinite universe cosmologists were more accurate (closer to 2.7 K), done more often and earlier than the prediction of one group of big bang cosmologists.
The cosmic background radiation, which was found by coincidence, is seen as the big proof of the big bang model by big bang cosmologists for four decades now. Big bang cosmologists think that when the universe was 300,000 year old electrically charged particles like electrons and protons combined into electrically neutral atoms. Electrically charged particles disturb the movement of light, so only when electrically neutral charged atoms came into existence in the universe photons could travel undisturbed. These photons were stretched by the expansion of space and thus have become the cosmic background radiation (of 2.7 K). The calculated expansion redshift of the cosmic background radiation is z = 1000.
A universe that is infinite in time and space will have an equilibrium temperature and this temperature can be 2.7 K (which is also brought to the front by others3). Big bang cosmologists as well as infinite universe cosmologists agree that the temperature of the universe is 2.7 K (because there are so very much cosmic background radiation photons). Hence the cosmic background radiation can be the equilibrium temperature of an infinite universe. With models in which the universe has an equilibrium temperature, long before the discovery of the cosmic background in 1965, scientists had found an equilibrium temperature of the universe of 2.8 K, 3.1 K, 1.9 K < T < 6,0 K en 5 K < T < 6 K in four different researches8.
Before 1965 one group of big bang cosmologists8 had found a temperature of 5 K < T < 50 K. Much less accurate and hence it is upsetting that big bang cosmologists present the 5 K < T < 50 K prediction as "proof" of the big bang for almost half a century now.
In an infinite universe one will have an equilibrium between light giving matter like stars and galaxies on one hand and dark matter like burned out stars and burned out galaxies (and gas clouds) on the other hand. Burned out stars and burned out galaxies can be the dark matter that fruitlessly has been searched by cosmologists since the seventies. However, there can be something else with respect to dark matter if you take figures 11 and 14 in mind.
Last decennium it was measured that space probes which come close to the earth get an extra push and hence accelerate more than calculated by the gravity formulas. Why this is, is not known, but closer to the earth there may be a bit more gravity than so far expected with the current gravity formulas. Perhaps this is caused by the effect shown by figures 11 and 14: perhaps close to the earth extra gravity particles are bend towards the earth. Perhaps this way the "extra push" of the space probes can be explained. Much of the matter of our solar system is concentrated in our sun. In galaxies and clusters of galaxies this is different, because in galaxies and clusters of galaxies the matter is more spread out over the whole volume of the galaxies respectively clusters of galaxies (look at figures 11 and 14 and take a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies in mind as an object/"particle" towards which gravity particles bend). Perhaps within galaxies and clusters of galaxies too there is something going on as shown in figures 11 and 14. Stars and galaxies at the outskirts of respectively galaxies and clusters of galaxies therefore too may get an "extra push" by bending gravity particles, hence there may be less (dark) matter in respectively galaxies and clusters of galaxies than calculated with gravity formulas so far. This too may explain part of the dark matter.
Recently for the first time a three-dimensional map was made by direct observation of dark matter by weak gravity lensing. The observations showed that there are many places in the universe with both dark matter as well as (light giving) galaxies and that there are also places in the universe with dark matter but without galaxies. However, there are also places in the universe with galaxies but without dark matter and this is a problem for the big bang model9. In an infinite universe one will have dark matter in the form of blackened old galaxies, but also sources where hydrogen is produced, for instance by radio loud activities of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs)10. In an infinite universe one will find dark matter without (light giving) galaxies at places where there are blackened galaxies with little hydrogen. If there are blackened galaxies somewhere in the universe where there is much hydrogen then all (or at least many of the) darkened stars and remnants of stars will attract hydrogen and light up as stars. Hence in an infinite universe it can be self-evident that there are places with dark matter and no galaxies, but also places with galaxies and no dark matter.
In an infinite universe there will be equilibrium between light giving matter like stars and galaxies on one hand and blackened stars and blackened galaxies on the other hand, but there also will be equilibrium between processes that give energy and processes that take energy, which then brings a certain average temperature in the universe, the equilibrium temperature. There are nuclear processes that give energy: fusion of smaller atoms than iron into heavier atoms, up to iron, and fission of heavier atoms than iron to lighter atoms, also up to iron. Examples of processes that cost energy are fission of atoms smaller than iron into lighter atoms (something that possibly happens during radio loud activity of AGNs, during this process gravity provides part of the energy10) or the fusion of atoms heavier than iron into heavier atoms (something that possibly happens in pulsars, during this process gravity may provide the energy10). But there can also be other processes in the universe that cost energy or give energy, processes we don't know yet.
If gravity particles cause cosmological redshift then gravity particles cause cooling of photons and hence cooling of the universe. Cosmological redshift therefore can be seen as a cooling mechanism in an infinite universe. At the same time gravity particles will get more energy by taking energy from photons (i.e. if cosmological redshift is caused by gravity particles). Gravity particles will lose energy by pushing with enormous forces against objects. There is for instance an enormous effort by gravity particles which push all the matter of the earth together in the form of a sphere. Gravity therefore can be seen as an energy-changer (something which has been thought up by others too7). Gravity (particles) is something that has to be inserted in energy balances.
It is gravity that holds our earth, Milky Way and Local Supercluster together. Gravity continually works on our earth with an enormous force. Some scientists think that gravity ads warmth to our earth which makes our earth expand7. This is less odd than it may look for some scientists at first sight, brown dwarfs are supposed to glow because of gravity. Gravity causes partly the warmth of the sun. Gravity also causes pressure in the sun leading to fusion of hydrogen into helium, a process causing more warmth and causing the sun to send out hot photons. In an infinite universe model these hot photons may give energy to gravity particles by cosmological redshift. Gravity may also cause pressure and heat in certain AGNs (certain quasars and galaxies), pressure so big that AGNs break down elements. Perhaps that during radio loud activities of quasars and galaxies much old blackened stars and old blackened galaxies with many heavy elements get pushed together by gravity, pushed together with so much force that in the AGNs heavy elements break down into protons and electrons. This way radio loud AGNs may inject enormous quantities of protons and electrons into the universe. This may be the recycle mechanism in the universe that provides hydrogen10.
With Newton one may expect that in an infinite universe gravity causes matter to go to certain spots. This is what happens indeed: matter is round up in stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. However, protons and electrons from the nuclei of AGNs (which are not black holes in an infinite universe10) may be injected into the universe with an enormous force because of gravity. In an infinite universe gravity therefore may cause concentrated assemblages of matter to inject matter (i.e. protons and electrons) into the universe with such speeds and amounts that such matter can come in the big voids between the superclusters. An infinite universe hence can be seen as a universe that recycles itself infinitely.
Whatever process that causes it, a temperature equilibrium will establish itself in an infinite universe and this equilibrium then will be 2.7 K. How can you get photons with this 2.7 K temperature? At least three mechanisms have been suggested for this3. A possibility is that photons exchange energy directly with each other. Another possibility is that photons exchange energy indirectly by smaller particles like gravity particles and/or other perhaps even smaller particles (also electrons have been suggested as energy-changers). A third possibility is that dark matter in the form of old cold stars and remnants of stars (like dust) cools down to the equilibrium temperature (2.7 K) of the universe and sends out cosmic background photons. (There is also the possibility that more than one of the here mentioned possibilities contribute.)
Also cosmological redshift may cause cosmic background radiation. Our telescopes now reach up to about z = 12. When distances are very big then the comic background radiation may come from visible starlight that has lowed down its temperature to 2.7 K by cosmological redshift (with z = 1000 optical light has become cosmic background radiation). A galaxy with z = 0.3 is at a distance of 3.5 billion light years. With tired light redshift a galaxy with z = 1000 is at a distance of (1000/0.3) x 3.5 = 12,000 billion light years.
Perhaps you then would expect that there also should be cosmic background radiation (of even further away galaxies) which has been stretched even more than the cosmic background radiation we see now. However, if one or more of the here mentioned mechanisms cause cosmic background radiation too then these mechanisms may become dominant if light travels much longer than 12,000 billion year through the universe (for instance because photons one day collide into dark or light giving matter). And it may be possible that gravity particles, which will have a certain temperature (for instance 2.7 K), take energy from hot photons (T > 2.7 K) and give energy to cold photons (T < 2.7 K). (This would mean that the cosmological redshift is different for different kinds of radiation. So far this has not been observed.)
The "second big proof" of the big bang model
The discovery of the cosmic background radiation has been very important for the acceptance of the big bang model. That other scientists earlier, more accurate and more often had predicted the cosmic background radiation with universe models with an equilibrium temperature did not bring down any of the euphoria of the big bang cosmologists. What the observation of starlight during a sun eclipse in 1919 had done for the acceptance of the theory of relativity the observation of the cosmic background radiation in 1965 did for the acceptance of the big bang model. But something else came up the last decennium, something conventional science considers as an enormous triumph. The "second big proof" of the big bang that scientists brought to the front after the "first big proof" in 1965 by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.
In the eighties of the last century big bang cosmologists had a lot of problems. Until Alan Guth's inflation model came to the front, a model that suggested that an inflation field, by means of negative pressure, caused negative gravity, which very shortly after the big bang doubled the universe every 10-37 second during 10-35 second. The inflation model solved many problems big bang cosmologists were struggling with. Problems you don't have in an infinite universe, problems I won't discuss here, except one. For how do you explain that 14 billion years ago an exploding point brought a universe in which matter has gathered itself into more than 250 billion galaxies? Somewhere in that very small point of 14 billion years ago should be an irregularity, an initial non-uniformity that caused not only galaxies 14 billion years later, but also big superclusters and big voids.
The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics solved this problem in big bang cosmology. The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics makes things on micro level turbulent and jumpy. (The uncertainty principle is purely theoretic and like time it exists only in our brains. Big bang cosmologists take it as something that physically really exists.) In the inflation of 10-35 second the uncertainty principle-irregularities in the very small (otherwise uniform microscopic) point transform into the irregularities we see in the universe: matter gathered into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies. As mentioned before: the uncertainty principle is based on not (yet) knowing of both speed and place of a particle on a certain moment because we measure with photons. When we discover smaller particles and measure with them the uncertainty principle will come to look very different (and probably won't be looked upon anymore as something that really exists) and the quantum formulas that are connected with it too. Big bang cosmologists make the mistake that the quantum mechanical mathematics they use to describe reality as good as possible are seen as reality. This too goes for the mathematics of the theory of relativity and Newton's universal law of gravity, which makes cosmologists think that the universe contains objects like neutron stars and black holes. With pushing gravity neutron stars and black holes most likely only exist in our brains and then the matter of 250 billion galaxies can not be in a volume that is smaller than a proton.
Thanks to the uncertainty principle and the quantum mechanical mathematics that followed big bang cosmologists could develop mathematical models in which they used adjustable flexible parameters that helped them to make solid models that mathematically beautifully described how irregularities in the small primeval atom developed themselves into the superclusters we now see in the universe.
But the mathematical models not only could predict where superclusters should pop up in the universe after 14 billion years, the models also could predict where in the universe the temperature of the cosmic background radiation should be a little higher or a little lower. The temperature of the cosmic background radiation coming from superclusters should be a little lower (2.7249 K in stead of 2.7250 K). Big bang cosmologists think that photons of the cosmic background radiation coming from an area with a higher matter density (i.e. galaxies, clusters and superclusters) used a little more energy 14 billion years ago to get themselves out of a stronger gravity field. Big bang cosmologists think that cosmic background radiation from areas with more galaxies therefore should have a little lower temperature. And indeed, the temperature of the cosmic background radiation from areas with more galaxies is a little lower, the "second big proof" of the big bang model after the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.
From the big superclusters scientists had modified models and parameters to the small point or primeval atom. They had adjusted things in such a way that irregularities in the primeval atom brought the big heaps of matter we see in our today universe. Then the found model was used to calculate where the lower temperatures in the background radiation were situated. And yes, it all fitted, lower temperatures where there were superclusters. However, nothing was proved. It was already shown that there was a correlation between the amount of matter in a certain part of the universe and the temperature of the cosmic background radiation coming from those areas. Scientists had calculated their way towards the "proven truth" (the same happened with the amount of helium in the universe, comes later). The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is lower when the radiation comes from areas with much matter, but this can also be explained with extra tired light redshift because of extra matter. The "second big proof" of the big bang therefore may turn out to be an ether effect and a confirmation of the tired light hypothesis.
The dark sky at night
There is a centuries old problem that always has been taken very seriously in cosmology. This problem was brought up by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and it comes to you when you look at the sky at night and wonder about why you don't see a glow of white light if there are infinite galaxies in an infinite universe. You may think you should see a "white glow" instead of a dark sky.
The explanation of the absence of a "white glow" is in the big bang model as follows: too little starlight of too little stars that burn too short and not enough powerful and which are too far away in an expanding big bang universe. Big bang cosmologists see their explanation for the dark sky at night also as "proof" for the big bang.
The problem of the dark sky can also be solved if you think of dark matter in the form of blackened stars and blackened galaxies of which there is (probably) more than there is light giving matter. With much dark matter cooled down to the equilibrium temperature (2.7 K) of the universe one gets that starlight falls on dark matter and gets send out again with the temperature of that matter (2.7 K) and hence with the temperature of the cosmic background radiation.
If starlight from very far away (like 12,000 billion light years) eventually redshifts into the wavelength of the cosmic background radiation then that too can be seen as (part of) the solution of the dark sky at night. But also the other explanations of the cosmic background radiation in an infinite universe (like direct energy-exchange between photons) can contribute to the solution of the problem of the dark sky.
One needs to look for cooling down processes in an infinite universe anyhow, otherwise everything becomes overheated in the universe, because then the universe evermore heats up by burning stars. In 1823 Heinrich Olbers (1758-1840) suggested that starlight may be absorbed by dark matter. The same was also suggested in 1754 by Jean-Philippe Loys de Chéseaux (1718-1751). However, in 1848 John Herschel brought this explanation down by stating that such dark matter eventually would become so hot that it would send out as much energy as it would absorb5. In a way this is true in an infinite universe, but the situation becomes different if there are processes in the universe that take energy (like iron that changes into other elements). In that case the cosmic background radiation will correspond with the equilibrium temperature of energy bringing processes and energy taking processes.
The problem of the dark sky is solved too if you understand that there is a "white glow", i.e. the "white" glow of the cosmic background radiation (which we can not see with our eyes, but which we can "see" with our instruments). So the problem of a dark sky that should be a white glow in an infinite universe with an infinite number of stars and galaxies does not exist, because the "white" glow exists.
One can say that there is another glow. A "glow" of gravity particles (and possible other even smaller particles). At a certain moment gravity particles should collide into something or else gravity in an infinite universe becomes infinite big. It may be very likely that gravity does not become infinite big because sub-atomic particles may absorb and send out gravity particles according to the pushing gravity concept2. In an infinite universe one may expect that also where it comes to the amount of gravity particles there will be a certain equilibrium.
The helium problem
If the universe came to existence in a big bang then one might expect that only small particles like protons and electrons came into existence, protons and electrons that then later combined to hydrogen. Hydrogen then gathered (by gravity) into stars after which heavier elements like helium came into existence by fusion. The amount of helium in the universe gave a problem for big bang cosmology. All the gas in the universe roughly exists for 75 % out of hydrogen and for 25 % out of helium. However, if all stars in the big bang universe transformed hydrogen into helium during the time that the universe exists then the amount of produced helium is not even 2.5 % of the 25 % helium that we see in the universe. Big bang cosmologists started calculating and adjusted their models so that their new big bang model produced the desired amount of helium within 200 seconds after the big bang. This calculation by big bang cosmologists is seen by them as one of the big successes of the big bang model.
According to big bang cosmology hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium were produced within the first minutes of the universe in certain proportions (deuterium and lithium in very small proportions compared to hydrogen and helium). The calculations of those proportions are very close to the amounts of hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium observed in the universe. However, the scientists new on forehand what proportions should come out of the models. Big bang cosmologists only did one good prediction and that is the prediction of the cosmic background radiation, but the cosmic background radiation was predicted earlier and more accurate with universe models with an equilibrium temperature.
Equilibrium will have established itself between different elements in an infinite universe model in which stars have had infinite time to produce helium. There is no helium problem in an infinite universe model.
I think that there are more heavy elements like iron than expected so far. Big bang astronomers think that the ratios of elements they see in the outer layer of a star represent the ratios of elements in the whole star. They look at stars this way because they think that stars come into existence because of the collapse of clouds of gas under their own weight. However, in an infinite universe one will get that smaller massive heavy elements (like for instance our earth) collect gas (by gravity). This way one gets stars with increasing nuclei with heavy elements10.
Peculiar motion and concentrations of galaxies
Already in 1954 Vera Rubin published that there are gatherings of galaxies in the universe, with in between giant voids. Her findings were ignored, because scientists thought that the big bang had spread matter over the universe uniformly. After more than three decennia big bang cosmologists reluctantly had to admit, after a very long time of denial, that the universe indeed consisted of enormous concentrations of galaxies with giant voids in between, the absolute opposite of what they had advanced for half a century. After that new big bang models made sure that such enormous assemblages of galaxies could come to existence after the big bang. With her observations of assembled galaxies Vera Rubin also had calculated that the discrepancies between the observed distances and (cosmological) redshift could be explained by suggesting that galaxies could move independently with respect to the outwards directed expansion of the universe (which meant that also Doppler redshift should be taken into account). This phenomenon is called peculiar movement and it is, after a long time of denial, acknowledged by big bang cosmologists. Galaxies can travel with fast speeds towards other galaxies and also clusters of galaxies can travel with fast speeds to other clusters. Today peculiar movement is something that is neatly predicted by big bang models.
In an infinite universe one will get that galaxies move towards each other because of gravity, which brings the galaxies certain speeds and makes the galaxies concentrate into clusters of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies. Peculiar movement and gatherings of galaxies are self-evident ingredients of an infinite universe model.
Measurements and observations within physics and cosmology can be explained easily and coherent with a physical/cosmological model that supposes hypothetical small particles like gravity particles and that considers the universe to be infinite in space and time.
1. Coleman J.A. Relativity for the layman, Penguin Books, London, 1990 (first print in 1954 by the William-Frederick Press, New York).
2. Edwards M.R. Pushing gravity: new perspectives on Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Apeiron, Montreal, 2002.
3. Gaastra E. Is the biggest paradigm shift in the history of science at hand?, Progress in Physics, 2005, v.3, 57-61.
4. Cahill R.T. The Michelson and Morley 1887 experiment and the discovery of absolute motion, Progress in Physics, 2005, v.3, 25-29.
5. Gaastra E. High redshift galaxies may be clusters of galaxies, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 2005, v.2, n.1, 30-32.
6. Harrison E.R. Cosmology: the science of the universe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
7. Edwards M.R. Graviton decay without decreasing G: a possible cause of planetary heating, expansion and evolution, Annals of Geophysics, 2006, supplement to v. 49, n. 1, 501-508.
8. Assis A.K.T. and Neves M.C.D. History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson, Apeiron, 1995, v.2, 79-84.
9. Schilling G. Invisible skeleton carries almost all stars (text is in Dutch), De Volkskrant, January 13 2007.
10. Gaastra E. An astronomy model within an infinite universe, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 2004, v.1, n.1, 21-24.
back to cv, publications and interviews