Response by Sam Cox to "On an Alternative Cosmology" by Vankov; University of Missouri, (U.S.A.)
I can very much agree with Dr. Vankov's first assertion in the brief introduction to his paper. He says; "The Standard Cosmological Model faces numerous problems". The most serious problem with the standard cosmoligical model lies not in its "nuts and bolts" derivation, but in its assumed dimensional structure (4D). Once the matter of the true dimensional structure of the universe is clarified, the concept will be seen from a better perspective.
When antimatter was first discovered, it was PRESUMED that antimatter and matter could not coexist in stable sub-microscopic relationships without destroying the universe, and that the universe was a four dimensional entity. Therefore it was assumed that at creation, "slightly" more, and I mean a little more than "slightly" positive matter was formed than antimatter. The process of mutual destruction which followed immediately following "creation" left precious little antimatter in the universe, which was now dominated by positive matter. It is not necessary in this brief review to detail the concept of the Standard Model- except to say that it is conceptually lacking. This is a major reason for Dr. Vankov's paper- to propose some possible new solutions to the cosmological puzzle.
Every time I look at the formula E=mc2 I remember that the Universe described by Einstein is not infinite- except in the important respect that the laws of the conservation of matter and energy require it to "orbit" within itself, and exist, forever. From a cosmological frame of reference, the EHU is a holographic "pebble", a seed a CD-ROM if you will, containing everything, all of eternity and everything in it, frozen- beginning to end.
The "solution" to the seeming problems of entropy and control with the EHU may lie internally, in its dimensional structure, rather than externally. There is no "outside". If there were an outside, any mass, though unobserved would have to be accounted for in the famous equation I mentioned, which defines the GU (Grand Universe) as finite, not infinite.
With this in mind, from an Einsteinian perspective, Dr. Vankov is off to an uncertain start in the first paragraph of his paper, when he says: "The Grand Universe is an INFINITE multitude of Typical Universes".
Dr. Vankov's mass figures for the HU (home) universe look pretty good ...1052 power kilograms. I usually start with the projected mass figures when I read any paper on cosmology. Some time ago I did an "off the cuff" observed universe mass calculation and arrived at 6.9x1053 power grams. I've looked at the work of others and feel that figure is something to work with, as long as I understand where I "cut corners" to complete the exercise before the bell rang at the end of class! Dr. Vankov uses kilograms, but making the three orders of magnitude adjustment brings him close, because the observed universe is believed by most professionals to contain only 1% to 10% of the actual mass of the universe. As I recall, my figure worked out at around 9% give or take an order of magnitude or so.
My best figure on the absolute mass of the GR universe is 1053 KG.One big problem with Dr. Vankov's paper is that he describes the GU (Grand Universe) interacting with the HU (home universe). To me, this means that their contents, matter and energy in its various forms are acting in tandem. This would mean that REALLY, the mass of Dr. Vankov's COMPLETE universe would be infinite- and non-Einsteinian. He must understand that well for he says:" Eventually, a TU (Typical Universe) becomes a relativistic system, with growing instability". The point is that our relativistic HU (home universe) is an atypical, typical universe, because it is relativistic ...and it may "decay" at any time and "fall out of existence".
It is clear Dr. Vankov really has STUDIED General Relativity! General Relativity, for any one who has seriously studied it, can be positively frustrating. Values fly to infinity and zero all over the place. It is a picture of instability. (See the "Motorcycle Universe") Studying the mathematical thresholds described by GR lays the groundwork for a study of Quantum Mechanics. The bottom line is that there is not much working room between zero and infinity in an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe....and that's the way it IS too. Our Home Universe, the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe only exists as it is observed. The 4-D model is mathematically and dynamically unstable all the way.
The eternal existence of the 7-D GR model is the key to its stability, an absolute guarantee that it will continue. The 7-D model is keyed to observation- and life.Dr. Vankov is a very perceptive person, but he "walks the line" between classical and relativistic ideas. Of course so did Einstein, who added terms to existing Newtonian equations. We can't blame Dr. Vankov for the way he has proceeded! He is in excellent company!
Dr. Vankov does not specialize in Topology, not so far as I can see at first reading anyway. He does see symmetry between matter and antimatter, and he has some very interesting observations on the possibility of stable relationships existing between the two. Because the Topological aspect is sur pressed (matter and antimatter existing in stable, sub-microsopic relationships, the strategic placement of singularity in the universe, polarity, dimensionality and the related organized effects etc.) his universe seems somewhat more chaotic- and as I have said, infinitely more vast than an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, with many chance encounters of large amounts of discrete accumulations of Matter and Antimatter in the universe. To Dr. Vankov's great credit, large clouds of Positrons (negative electrons) have been found annihilating with Electrons in our own galaxy. This observation strengthens his ideas very much.
I'm frankly mystified, in the light of what Dr. Vankov says about the instability of relativistic cosmological systems, why he says in his basic hypothesis the "intrinsic properties of GU (Grand Universe- the whole infinite universe) matter are RELATIVISTIC MOTION and re-creation." Is the whole, infinite universe relativistically unstable? If so, why bother to talk about a GU (Grand Universe) a TU (typical universe) and an HU (home universe)? Why not just make them all into one happy family?...a big, infinite- and non-relativistic entity? At least, keep the classical, and mathematically more stable, Grand Universe and attempt to describe the physical processes by which the Grand Universe fragments (or evolves) into typical, and still stable, classical universes, which then decay into the relativistic unstable variety.
Item 3: "Relativistic motion of GU (Grand Universe) matter is a cause of steady state and cyclic re-creation in the processes of annihilation and pair creation." If the grand universe is infinite, it has to be pretty steady! I believe Dr. Vankov is saying that within the infinite whole, matter and energy are constantly being recycled. This concept (except for the infinite definition) also applies to the EHU....but the ideas of stable geometric configurations of matter/antimatter pairs, and the topology of the EHU are missing.
Dr. Vankov says that the "distribution function must be one of the main goals of the theory" (his cosmology). That is true of ALMOST any cosmology (The EHU is an exception because it is eternal. The distribution of matter in an EHU just IS, and the way it "started" just IS too! Talk about Cosmology made easy; some people suspect TOO easy!). The Ad Hoc concept of "Inflation" is an attempt to explain the present distribution of matter in the universe from a space time frame of reference.
"The Standard Model failed to predict red shift counts". Dr. Vankov correctly infers that the problems with the "Standard Model" are serious, and avoids a detailed discussion.
"Therefore, Cosmic Rays are the result of Grand Universe Background Gas transformation and moderation in...transport through a Home Universe medium". A lot of work has been done on the origin of cosmic rays in the United States and Europe. Most information I have studied concludes that Cosmic Rays are atomic nuclei stripped of their electrons by supernova explosions and other cosmic violence. They play a game of "tennis" with magnetic fields in space and increase their energy astronomically even from that originally imparted. When they strike the earths atmosphere, their energy is transferred to the atoms in the earths atmosphere which disintegrate. The fragments of these atoms are then detected at the earths surface. Cosmic rays come from everywhere in the universe with little if any variation, much as the background radiation itself has little variation.
(This is a matter of current study 7/00)The classical idea of a Home Universe Medium, must really make physicists feel comfortable. We are 100 years removed from the Aether, yet the concept persists that somehow, maybe the Cosmic Background Radiation might also be some "medium". I am not sure even physicists understand how revolutionary Relativity is, or how EMPTY is space. Interplanetary Space is almost a perfect vacuum, but interstellar space makes interplanetary space look like the Earth's atmosphere. Intergalactic space is just, well, Empty. Why all this talk of things moving through a "medium"? If there was a few hundred atoms per cubic meter, on the average, between the earth and the most distant parts of the universe, distant galaxies would be completely obscured. Relativity is real. Light is an absolute constant which defines existence in the universe.
Dr. Vankov points out other problems with the Standard Model, Singularity, flatness and horizon.
He then talks about rotation of the Home Universe. Ned Wright from UCLA and others have worked on this problem and concluded that the HU is not rotating (29 out of 30 odds).
One of the problems with Einsteinian Cosmology is that computers have been unable to solve the equations! The task of visualizing and describing an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe has been left to humans. The human mind is a powerful computer, but even people with a high spatial and verbal IQ must be comprehensively studied in relativity to draw correct conclusions. Within the next several years, scientists feel computers able to solve the equations of Einstein will be available. It will be interesting to compare the computer results when they become available, with the descriptive document (The 7-D and up Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe). It is one of few such documents in the world.
The problem of entropy, in a universe developing in time with no foundation in eternal existence is a very serious matter...how serious one can quickly visualize by reading professional field work on the subject! Dr. Vankov deals very lightly with this important issue in his paper.
Dr. Vankov has many fascinating ideas.
Sincerely, Sam Cox
