Revised Steady State Theory
Sven Gelbhaar
20 May 2010
<< Alles ist was es ist. >>
In a previous paper, I discussed possible sources of Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation, or CMBR. (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and
how it relates to Big Bang Theory, Sven Gelbhaar, 31 August 2007). In
another I discussed how the red shift effect, as seen in distant stars, is
more a function of distance, and not of a race to get away from us. (On
Hubble’s Red Shift Findings, Sven Gelbhaar, 5 November 2008) This does
away with all proofs of the Big Bang Theory, as the current theory of
genesis is termed. So, what then can we possibly infer from the nature of
existence as we know it that can elucidate how it, or rather everything
that comprises it, was created, or if it even was?
We know from every day experiences that matter can not be created nor
destroyed, although the exact authenticity of this premise, down the most
minute pieces of matter, must surely be verified by the likes of
microscopes and techniques not yet devised. From this and the law of
invariance (Galileo) we can quite rightly make the claim that all of the
matter currently in existence have always been, and always will be, so.
These premises lead us naturally to question the limits of the universe.
As I have argued in my paper on Hubble’s Red Shift Findings, just because
our sight is inherently limited to a set range in terms of distance from
us, does this necessitate that nothing exists beyond said distance? The
default assumption is no, for the precedent set forth by observable nature
is that space and bodies taking up space do in fact exist regardless of
where one might look, even though they might not be readily apparent at
first glance. Consequently we know, given that the reader accepts these
premises, that the universe goes on indefinitely in all directions, and
that there are probably countless bodies of mass, presumably much like
those seen from our own particular vantage point, no matter how far away
one goes and sees.
This conclusion, however, does not agree with the law of entropy, as it is
currently applied to a closed system such as the universe [as closed or
limited as a never-ending system can be, anyway]. It states that the
usable energy in such a system will constantly decrease over time. In
other words, given that an infinite amount of time has preceded us to
constantly drain away at all of the usable energy in the universe, it
should have long ago been used up (an infinitely long time ago,
coincidentally, but still less time than such a system would have been in
existence), and an equilibrium should have been reached in that time
wherein everything is in its final and ever-lasting place. This is in
great disparity to what we can see all around us today. The stars are
still shining, which is a majestic display of usable energy, the wind still
blows, and energy-sinks as wasteful (if you’ll pardon the expression) as
humans still come into existence every day. Therefore, either one of the
previous premises, just the conclusion, or the law of entropy must be
wrong.
All of my premises are logically sound, as far as I can tell [the hubris!],
and the conclusion follows naturally and necessarily. So then the fault
must lie with the law of entropy.
Let us envision an instance of the Universe which meets all of the criteria
set forth by this paper. It stretches out into infinity in all directions
in both space and time. Bodies of mass, more specifically stars, planets,
moons, et alia, are to be found in all directions as well. How can we set
this up so that usable energy cannot be lost, given the mandates handed to
us by nature [laws of physics] ? Nature herself supplies us with the
answer. In biology there are such mechanisms as feedback loops. When so
much of a protein has been created, it stuffs up the works so that no more
can be created until the old have been removed or used up; then the process
starts all over again. Let us use this process as a guide to setting up
our conceptual Universe so that it can do what it is currently doing for
all of time.
[20 May 2010, 7:13pm: Break time; union rules! Parting notes: fusion and
fission inside stars. Element -lysis via Unified Force Theory and
Photoelectron Equivalence Theory in different (or the same for all I know)
parts of stars. Equal exchange of photons/electrons between stars, as no
matter which way they go they’re bound to hit another star eventually,
right? Crystallize You Can’t Miss paradox, if possible under this
scheme as a possible rational falsification technique. Same principle
applies to protons, and combinations of the two (viz.: everything). Would
this apply to larger bodies of mass eventually? Semi-stable systems of
spatial order: galaxies, and why this doesn’t apply to photons and protons.
And my brain is fried. Planets (et al) as proton sinks that naturally
re-join with their corresponding star whenever they reach a critical mass.
How would these form to begin with, though? Mid-air collisions
between expelled protons within an acceptable range close to a star.]
Let’s start with the most quintessential macroscopic bodies of mass
proliferating this infinite expanse we call the Universe: a star. Here we
have a collection of protons and electrons, the former positively charged
electromagnetically, the latter negatively charged. These are attracted to
one another, but repelled by other members of the same type of particle.
Thus protons attract electrons yet repel each other, and electrons attract
protons yet repel each other. The inevitable combination of the larger
proton with smaller electrons gives us the neutron, which if logic is to be
believed at all results in the proton being covered by electrons, giving us
an over-all neutrally (electrically) charged particle called a neutron.
This was already covered in another paper of mine entitled Unified Force
Theory ( , Sven Gelbhaar, 22 February 2009) which makes the assertion
that the fundamental force upon which all of the other forces arbitrarily
invented by the Standard Model of (sub-)atomic physics rely upon: gravity,
weak, and strong nuclear force, are emergent forces that rely upon
electromagnetism, or the electromagnetic force. For the sake of this
paper, I will assume that the reader is already well versed on the contents
of this paper and that the conclusion reached therein is true.
So now we have this star, just sitting there inert. Observation tells us
that when a critical amount of matter, thus aligned or spatially
configured, exists, a process called fusion will occur, which is what we
call the merging of proton-electron sets merging into sets of multi- proton
and neutron atoms. We have also observed, in the cases of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, not to mention in the reaction chambers of all of our nuclear
power plants, that when electromagnetic radiation is directed at various
elements, a splitting of these ‘heavier’ atoms/elements will occur. This
is easily visualized as the repulsion of the incoming stream of electrons
against those electrons on the surfaces of neutrons that act as glue
between protons in these molecules. Once the repulsive force between these
two acting members is great enough, the ‘glue’ electrons are ejected, and
the result is the proverbial splitting of the atom. So, going back to
what is happening inside this now active star, the result of fusion (or the
combination of smaller molecules into those with bigger nuclei) is the
ejection of electrons which couldn’t be spontaneously integrated into this
shifting electrical system called an atom. Given how much fusion is taking
place in the center of the sun, and that the result of this is both heavier
elements and plenty of high speed (and therefore powerful) electrons, it is
perfectly possible if not necessary that fission also takes place within
the confines of this star. As such, the balance of light and heavier
elements will balance out indefinitely inside a closed-system version of
this star.
No star is a closed system in and of itself, however. Proton-, and
obviously electron-loss is to expected. Bearing in mind the arguments
above, no matter which direction something goes it is bound to run into
something, most likely another star, and this process will maintain itself
indefinitely given that fusion and fission balance each other out.
What would happen if instead of another star, two atoms collide into each
other in such a manner to where they will ‘catch’ onto each other outside
the confines of a star? A new proto-planet is born. It will keep
collecting matter until eventually it is re-absorbed into a star, either of
its own accord, or if it had previously established a stable orbit, then it
will do so only when it has garnered enough mass to fall into the star it
is orbiting.
Under this system all observable facts and the aforementioned arguments are
reconciled, but no purely logical argument will do. Let us then wait
around for an eternity to establish the veracity of its claims.