### Cosmic Coincidences?

by Fred Vaughan

There seem always to be these nearly insurmountable
epistemological traps and barriers to overcome. We seem always to
be peering down the wrong end of telescopes, until very
occasionally by some accident of fate, we run off yelling
"Eureka! Eureka!" like demented
hippies in the backwoods of California. Our various highly evolved
linguistic and mathematical skills get applied primarily to
justifying the particular inanity that happens to be in vogue
— never with actually changing paradigms. There
seem always to be mathematical mappings of what *is* known of
the unknowable depths of our universe to the shallow waters of our
intellectual wading preference, but the veracity of such mappings
are warranted no more than formal propriety justifies aphorisms
depicted in poesy.

Consider what we know of our universe with regard to its composition as a very diffuse but impure hydrogenous plasma. Yes, as surely as to a first approximation we ourselves are mere bags of salt water, the universe is a hydrogenous plasma, both being pretty damn good approximations! With only this much firmly in our grasp, we must resist urges to charge off like rabid string theorists to find the big end of some telescope, waving at cameras and grabbing microphones as they go!

How diffuse? About 10^{-25} grams per
cubic meter. So in sifting through a cubic meter or so of
universal debris at random you might find an odd proton, an
electron to neutralize the concoction, and by-product neutrinos
all whizzing about at significant fractions of the speed of
light. The most obvious decomposition of this plasma being that
apparently on large scales everywhere in the universe it is 76
percent hydrogen nuclei and 24 percent helium nuclei (by mass
such that there are about twelve hydrogen nuclei per each helium)
with mere traces of other isotopes.

At high temperatures helium nuclei are formed from hydrogen
nuclei by nuclear fusion. (Of course at even higher temperatures
protons which comprise the nucleus of hydrogen can be created
from neutrons, and positrons, with neutrinos and associated
"opposites" dashing about, but let
us ignore third tier observations.) All nuclear reactions are
reversible with equilibrium percentages of each product
determined by temperature. Those of us who still accept the
conservation of energy — notice that most
cosmologists do *not* — insist that
*if* the 24 percent helium did indeed derive from
primordially pure hydrogen plasma, then the energy released would
not be totally lost. This caveat holds to the extent that the
universe is a closed system, which it would seem to this author
to be by definition. This radiant energy, however thermalized,
must therefore still be present somewhere in the universe.

Now if you go through the calculations, and they are very
straight-forward, you will find that the amount of radiation
energy released per cubic centimeter is precisely the amount of
energy invested in the microwave background radiation. All
fashionable cosmological theories take this to be a mere
coincidence. They tell us that the *facts* of annihilation
associated with an unknowable primordial imbalance in matter and
antimatter right after a miracle happened resulted in that glut
of energy which today is viewed as some sort of perversely
understood "fact" of the universe
supposedly *in reality* being only 3 degrees Kelvin rather
than the many orders of magnitude higher temperatures observed
everywhere we look! According to these theories the energy
balance coincidence is just a strange happenstance of our being
here *now* rather than somewhere somewhat similar a billion
years ago or hence! With such a perspective my confusion might
have been avoided. But I don't have it!

So how "bright" should it be if
this coincidental amount of radiation that we all agree is
actually out there *is* actually out there? Well,
let's think about that: On average every
hundred cubic meters or so of the universe contains evidence of
these reactions having taken place. From our observation point
the intensity from each reaction is diminished as 1/r^{2}
where r is the distance to each occurrence. We arrive at Olbers
paradox with the number of cubic meters increasing as the square
of the distance, r^{2}. Thus, we get to the crux of the
paradox when we combine these two effects for the entire
universe. But of course modern cosmology resolves such
difficulties by demanding a finite universe of radius
R_{o} = 1/H_{o} where H_{o} is
Hubble's constant. So we end up with a
modest(?) intensity given by:

So a finite universe and a justifying Bang are made for each other. But if the redshift-distance relation is accepted as mere fact rather than some grandiose deduction from conjecture, to the accuracy of precise observations the relation is characterized by r = R

_{o}ln (z+1), which theorists will tell you corresponds to an "Einstein-de Sitter Universe." Here we have distance given by the natural log of redshift, z, plus one, all divided by Hubble's constant. The effect of redshift is to reduce the frequency of radiation, thereby reducing its intensity by the factor 1/(z+1) = e

^{− r/Ro}. So that in an infinite universe we would have:

Thus, identical facts can be used to justify opposite theories if you're into that.

Of course cosmology involves a mass of observations concerning a
broad scope of concepts, all of which must be understood in such
a way that they agree before any comprehensive theory will ever
even approach some sort of validity. But, as with the preceding,
there seem to be more ways of looking at each fact than initially
meets the eye. Einstein's gravitation
equations don't address the obvious
possibilities of gravitational energy suffering the depredation
by redshifting while being propagated. Why not? Nor, of course,
should "Newton's iron
sphere theorem" be taken as having any relevance once
one realizes that the metaphor does not hold for a closed
universe for which there is no inside-outside *surface*.
Here too, therefore, *observed* gravitational effects of
finite universes cosmologists favor can be matched or bettered by
virtually identical ones involving indefinite extension.

Are these mere cosmic coincidences? I don't think so.

## No comments:

Post a Comment