Toward a new paradigm.
This paper proposes that certain nonstandard theories in geology, gravitation, particle physics, astronomy, and cosmology unify into a more coherent whole than the dominant theories in those fields. This new paradigm suggests that most of the searchers for a grand unified theory of physics are failing because they are looking in the wrong place.
At the end of the 20th century, all branches of the physical sciences have a dominant paradigm that is taught as the truth. Many of these paradigms are being seriously challenged by new data and new theories. Quite often the dissenting theories are being disregarded, not by data from their own discipline, but because they contradict the dominant paradigm in another discipline. The author believes that this has created a house of cards where, because of overspecialization in academia, wrong assumptions in one discipline are propping up wrong assumptions in other disciplines.
In geology the dominant theory, plate tectonics or continental drift, is facing many problems. There are several interesting alternatives. Perhaps the most promising fall under the category of Earth expansion. The Earth is expanding; therefore the continents appear to be drifting apart. It is a very simple theory that provides the best fit to the geologic data. It is being disregarded because the dominant paradigms in physics cannot provide a mechanism for this expansion and many geophysicists believe that the expansion rate proposed would contradict what we know about the history of Earth rotation and conservation of momentum.
Are there theories within physics that eliminate the contradiction and provide an expansion mechanism? Yes, but they are little known outside their own circles. In astronomy and cosmology, there is mounting evidence to reject the standard model, the big bang. The evidence that is the most difficult to explain away is the quantization of the cosmological redshift and the non-Doppler nature of quasar redshifts. The theories that encompass these phenomena are often rejected because they contradict the dominant paradigms in gravitation and particle physics.
The author contends that there exist theories of physics that are compatible with both the geologic and astronomical alternatives and that these theories provide hope for a simple unification.
This paper is the culmination of 13 years of research into nonstandard theories that was sparked by the analysis of earthquake statistics. In 1986, I came across a remarkable data set. My effort to make sense of it, and the reaction of the scientific community to it, completely changed my perception of the universe and my attitude toward science. Every time the standard theories suggested that my effort was futile, I took the other path.
The Parkfield Earthquakes
As the San Andreas Fault crosses California, it passes through the small town of Parkfield where there is a kink in it. This kink is generally believed to be the cause of the periodic earthquakes that occur there. (1) Because of their periodicity and the belief that they may trigger the next big quake in the Los Angeles area, these quakes have been the focus of more research dollars than any others. With all of this attention by the best of the American seismic community, it is hard to believe that there might be anything undiscovered in the data.
While looking for evidence of tidal triggering, a student (Darren Ritter) who was working with me noticed a peculiar relationship between lunar elongation (the angle between the sun and moon as measured from the Earth) and the timing of the Parkfield quakes. (1) If lunar elongation is plotted for the times of the quakes (Fig.1), the angles tightly cluster around 135[degrees] and 315[degrees] (135+180) with a conservatively estimated statistical significance of 0.995. The quakes also correlated with sunspot minimums (Fig.2) with a significance of at least 0.9. (These relationships were previously discovered by Bagby and several amateurs. (2) An Armenian geophysicist, G. P.Tamrazyan, found over 70 such relationships worldwide, while other researchers found many more. (3)
[FIGURES 1-2 OMITTED]
It is only reasonable to assume that if such strong correlations were noticed in precursors to what could be the greatest natural disaster in the richest country on Earth, that there would be a great deal of professional interest. There is none. (4) There is absolutely no way that these correlations can be incorporated into the standard theory of plate tectonics. There are no tidal stresses that are maximized or minimized locally at these times (or for many of the other relationships put forward by many researchers). Are there theories that can incorporate these phenomena? Yes, there are several where the earthis radius either expands or oscillates for various reasons, and I will refer to them as expanding Earth theories.
The Expanding Earth
In expanding Earth models it is usually assumed that when the Earth was about 50-60% of its present radius, it was covered completely by solid continent with no oceans. As it expanded, the continents broke and then drifted apart with material from the mantle upwelling along the cracks to fill in the gaps and form the mid-oceanic ridges. The continental plates, because of their lower density, float higher than the oceanic plates giving them greater rotational inertia. Therefore, because of conservation of angular momentum, Earth expansion will force the continental plates to drift westward at a faster rate than the oceanic plates. Because continental plates are not evenly distributed around the world (being predominantly in the northern hemisphere) this creates global torsions, which are responsible for most of the forces between plates. These torsions are modulated by Earth tides (caused by the sun and moon) and sunspot cycles that affect the earth's rotation rate. This modulation is the link between lunar-solar position, sunspot cycles, and earthquakes. (5)
Continental Drift versus Earth Expansion
The case against continental drift is growing, but is not often reported in the popular literature and is much too long to present here. (6) But I will mention that the satellite measurements that are supposed to be the strongest support for continental drift clearly contradict it and support a rate of Earth expansion over 1 cm per year. A new journal, New Concepts in Global Tectonics, (7) has been devoted to publishing contradictions to plate tectonics that have been suppressed by mainstream journals. There have been conferences in China and Japan with more than 2,000 participants each that were devoted to debunking plate tectonics.
The geologic case for Earth expansion has been well made by Hugh Owen, Lester King, Warren Hunt, and Warren Carey. (8,9,10,11)
The best fit of the data is an exponential growth rate, i.e., the growth rate is proportional to the existing mass of the Earth.
Problems with Expanding Earth
The primary difficulty with the acceptance of Earth expansion has been the lack of a mechanism within the standard theories of physics. One suggestion has been the Ramsey phase change hypothesis, where the earth's molten core expands as it solidifies. This is not thought to be capable of the required expansion. The two most common mechanisms are a decrease in the universal gravitational constant and the creation of new matter where matter already exists. Both mechanisms are outside the realm of standard theories.
Another problem is that as the Earth expands, its moment of inertia increases and its rotation should slow if angular momentum is to be conserved. While fossil evidence has shown that Earth rotation has slowed, it may not have slowed enough to be compatible with the inferred expansion rates if we take general relativity as our theory of gravity. (12)
Redshift Quantization and Anomalous Redshifts of Quasars
As astronomical objects become dimmer, their emission spectrums are shifted more to the red. The big bang assumes that the redshift is the result of an object traveling away from us, much as the siren of a fire truck has a lower pitch when it is going away. Therefore, the greater the distance, the faster an object must be receding. Going back in time, all of the objects must have been in one clump, which exploded.
The belief that recessional velocity is the only source of redshift is integral to the standard big bang model and is being increasingly challenged. The strongest challenge comes from redshift quantization. When galaxy redshifts are corrected for the motion of our own galaxy, they come in distinct multiples of 37.5 km/s (when interpreted as velocity). (13,14,15) Clusters of quasars have redshifts that tend to come in integral powers of 1.23 times the lowest redshift in the cluster. (15) There is also considerable evidence to show that quasars are associated with galaxies of much lower redshift; in fact they seem to be ejected from the centers of galaxies, and themselves grow into typical galaxies with typical redshifts. (15) There is no way that any of the standard models could lead to either of these phenomena. The latter would require large scale mass creation to account for the growth of the galaxies; and if the particles had a lighter mass when they were initially created, that would account for the anomalous redshifts. (16) If the masses of the particles only existed at discrete, quantized values, then that would account for the redshift quantization of the galaxies.
Arp has also shown that the masses of planets tend to be related with the same type of formula, their masses are equal to a base mass times 1.23 to an integral power. (15) The most obvious explanation is that particles would be created at a rate that is proportional to the number of particles in that body. In other words, the number of the particles would grow exponentially.
Another problem with the big bang is that the universe is far too structured. There are voids of matter that are far too large to be the result of coalescence after a big explosion. The universe has a fractal structure, it more closely resembles a primitive, one-cell organism that keeps dividing, growing, and spreading into a vast void.
In summary, phenomena in both geology and astrophysics could be better explained if we had a physics that would allow for large scale particle creation and allow elementary particle masses (and the attraction between them) to change. Physical theories that accomplish this exist, but there are few scientists that are aware of them and fewer still that are working on them.
Mass Creation and Particle Physics
Standard theories of particle physics allow for the creation of elementary particles, but matter-antimatter symmetry must be obeyed. There is always the simultaneous creation of an equal number of antiparticles of the same type. The particles and antiparticles quickly annihilate each other and there is never any long-term gain in particle number. To be sure, there are theories where large numbers of particles and antiparticles are created and separated from each other; and to compensate for mass creation in one body, we have antimatter being created in another body. These theories are generally too awkward to be taken seriously. But there is at least one theory where mass creation does not violate matter-antimatter symmetry.
Leptonic Theory of Matter
The initial appeal of the leptonic theory is its simplicity. The standard theory of particles has electrons, neutrinos, quarks of six flavors each of which has three colors, gluons, plus all of their corresponding antiparticles, plus photons. The leptonic theory, as envisioned by Assim Barut, has only photons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. All other particles are bound states of these four. (17)
In the standard theory, a proton consists of three quarks. If it is created, an antiproton consisting of three antiquarks of the same flavor and color must also be created. In the leptonic theory, a proton is a tightly bound state of two positrons and one electron where the binding force is primarily magnetic. Therefore we could create a proton-electron pair (a total of two electrons and two positrons) without violating particle-antiparticle symmetry.
If matter is created in electron-proton pairs and it is created where matter exists, then there should be evidence of hydrogen coming from the earth's interior. The absence of this hydrogen was once used as an argument against matter being created in the Earth. As it turns out, there is evidence of so much hydrogen emanating from the Earth's interior that Hunt and Larin have formulated the hydridic Earth theory around it. (10,18)
Problems with General Relativity
The typical student of gravity has been told about the three famous tests, which proved general relativity was the only acceptable theory of gravity. But history is never as simple as the victors write it. The validity of the classic tests, the basic logic of general relativity and the necessity of curved space have all been brought into question. Also, there have been a variety of phenomena that general relativity (and Newtonian gravity) cannot explain.
Marmet has shown that the advance of Mercury's perihelion could be explained much more simply with a classical theory and that the bending of light rays about the sun was never measured with sufficient accuracy to either prove or disprove general relativity. (19) There are logical problems resulting from general relativity's requirement that the gravitational force travel instantly.20 Among well documented phenomena that general relativity cannot explain are various three body gravitational effects. (20,21,22) It should not be surprising, then, that there is still active research into alternate gravitational theories.
Alternative Gravitation Theories
Jayant Narlikar, Halton Arp, and others have developed a theory of gravity and cosmology that attempts to explain many disparate phenomena. (23,15) Particles are produced spontaneously (the microscopic mechanism is unclear) and acquire mass as they interact with other particles. Atoms made of young, low mass particles would give off radiation that would be redshifted compared to the atoms of the same elements on Earth. Distant galaxies would be redshifted, not because of their recessional velocity, but because we are looking back in time when the particles are younger. The large redshifts of quasars are due to their youth.
A modification of this theory would have the particles acquiring mass in discrete jumps because they interact with mass in discrete clumps. This could produce the quantization of redshift. (24) The problem with this theory is that it never explains what happens on the microscopic level to create the particles and increase the mass.
P.A.M. Dirac developed a cosmology where the gravitational constant decreased with time and matter was created where matter existed. Again, he did not offer a microscale explanation. Neither of the above theories solve the problem with the Earth's rotation rate.
Are there theories that provide a mechanism for particle creation, the increase in mass over time of these particles, a decrease in gravitational attraction between them, and the increase in the Earth's rotation rate? Yes.
There have been many theories that have treated elementary particles as vortices, a piece of space that is rotating. These complement cosmologies with a rotating hierarchy. Satellites rotate about planets, planets rotate about stars, stars rotate about galaxies, galaxies rotate about clusters, clusters rotate about super clusters; until finally the whole universe is rotating. If the rotation is a simple rotation about an axis (cylindrical rotation) the theory has problems. (25) But if the axis undergoes integral multiples of 180[degrees] rotation, we have a three-dimensional vortex with some interesting properties. Battey-Pratt and Racey have shown that this type of vortex, or spherical rotation, explains the group properties of electrons-positrons and the phenomena of special relativity. (26) In conjunction with the leptonic theory of matter, it provides a mechanism for particle creation and the mass of these particles would be variable. The mass would depend on the rotation rate of the vortex. The rotation rates of the particles would reach an equilibrium rate with other particles as they interact with them. A newly created particle would increase in mass as it interacts with older particles as in the Narlikar type theories, explaining the redshift problem. Older particles would very slowly lose mass as the number of particles in their ken increases, decreasing the gravitational attraction between them. This and particle creation would explain Earth expansion. As the number of particles in an astronomical body would increase, so would its angular momentum as measured in new particle masses solving the rotation expansion paradox.
The New Paradigm
Most of the everyday physics stays the same. What changes is the way we interpret events that are far away in time or space. The universe is not the random consequence of a big bang and its destiny is not a black hole. Particles create other particles. Bodies grow over time. The Earth expands. Its tectonic forces are influenced by other bodies. Galaxies create quasars, which grow into galaxies, which create galaxy clusters, and so on. The universe has structure.
The properties of matter are determined by all other matter. The mechanisms are simple ones. Particles organize and replicate. If an observer could study a large part of the universe over a long time, it would resemble a simple life form. (27)
(1.) The quakes included in the sample occurred on April 10,1881; March 2,1901; March 10,1922; June 7,1934; and June 27, 1966.
(2.) Bagby, J. P. (1975). Earthquakes: predictions with precision. The Cornell Engineer, 46, 6-12.
(3.) Kokus, M. T. (1989). Seismic periodicities that can be related to lunar and solar cycles. A comprehensive review and bibliography. A special report for the Foundation for the Study of Cycles. See author for copies.
(4.) While a prominent researcher associated with the Parkfield research group did attempt to correlate the local seismic record with tidal stresses, the results were not published and the group has refused to discuss them with any outside researchers except to say that the results were null. In the seismic community at large, there was some initial excitement when it appeared that they might be able to incorporate lunar-solar triggering into plate tectonics, but recent actions suggest an outright hostility to anyone proposing a connection.
(5.) Kokus, M. T. (1994). Earth expansion and the prediction of earthquakes and volcanism. In M. Barone and F. Selleri (Eds.), Frontiers of Fundamental Physics (pp. 327-334). New York and London: Plenum Press.
(6.) Essentially, all of the arguments that were raised against plate tectonics in the early 1970s are still valid. The more we know about the mantel, the more unlikely it is that thermal convection exists there. The theory has been accepted as fact for over 30 years, and its proponents still have not agreed upon a final map of convection cells.
(7.) New Concepts in Plate Tectonics, 6 Mann Place, Higgins, A.C.T., 2615, Australia.
(8.) Owen, H. G. (1983). Atlas of continental displacements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(9.) King, L. C. (1983). Wandering continents and spreading seafloors on an expanding Earth. WHERE BOOK PUBLISHED? John Wiley & Sons
(10.) Hunt, C. W. (1990). Environment of violence. Calgary: Polar Publishing.
(11.) Carey, S. W. (1988). Theories of the Earth and universe. Stanford University Press.
(12.) Wesson, P. S. (1978). Cosmology and geophysics. New York: Oxford University Press.
(13.) Tifft, W. G. (1996). Evidence for quantized and variable redshifts in the cosmic background rest frame. Astrophysics and Space Science, 244, 29-56.
(14.) Napier, W. M. and Guthrie, B.N.G. (1996). Testing for quantized redshifts. Astrophysics and Space Science, 244, 57-64.
(15.) Arp, H. C. (1998). Seeing red. Montreal: Apeiron.
(16.) Kokus, M. T. and Barut, A. O. (1993). Suggestion for unifying two types of quantized redshift for astronomical bodies. Apeiron, 16, 11-13.
(17.) Barut, A. O. (1986). Unification based on electromagnetism. A simple composite model of particles. Annalen der Physik, 43, 83-92.
(18.) Larin, V. N. (1993). Hydridic Earth. Calgary: Polar Publishing.
(19.) Marmet, P. (1997). Einstein's theory of relativity versus classical mechanics. Gloucester, Ontario: Newton Physics Books.
(20.) Van Flandern, T. (1996). Possible new properties of gravity. Astrophysics and Space Science, 244, 249-262.
(21.) Allais, M. (1957). Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered? Aerospace Engineering, September and October.
(22.) Saxel, E. J.and Allen, M. (1971). 1970 solar eclipse as seen by a torsion pendulem. Physical Review D, 3, 823-825.
(23.) Narlikar, J. (1992). Introduction to cosmology, (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
(24.) Kokus, M. T. (1993). Quantized redshifts and the fractal geometry of the universe. In F. Selleri and M. Barone (Eds.), Advances in Fundamental Physics. New York and London: Plenum Press.
(25.) Kokus, M. T. (1996). Spherical rotation, particles and cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science, 244, 353-356.
(26.) Battey-Pratt, E. P. and Racey, T. J. (1980). Geometric model for fundamental particles. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 19,437-475.
(27.) Kokus, M. T. (1997). Fundamental hypothesis: An outline of a simple approach for unifying natural phenomena. Conference on the Fundamental Structure and Mechanisms of the Universe, Ray Tomes (Ed.), for the Alexandria Foundation.
Pennsylvania College of Technology, Pennsylvania State University, Williamsport, PA.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||News & Views|
|Date:||Sep 22, 1999|
|Previous Article:||Gravity as a wave phenomenon.|
|Next Article:||Active information, meaning and form.|