Files
memex/0_inbox/books/TWOW/html/33 Cosmogony.html

582 lines
47 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title> </title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="author" content="Amr Gharbeia">
<meta name="created" content="20010831;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150722;204603655567381">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 1.2cm; margin-top: 1.2cm; margin-bottom: 1.25cm }
p { text-indent: 1.27cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm; direction: ltr; color: #99ccff; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
p.western { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US }
p.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt }
p.ctl { font-family: "Simplified Arabic"; font-size: 10pt; so-language: ar-EG }
a:link { color: #0000ff }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-GB" text="#99ccff" link="#0000ff" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#993366"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><b>C<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_12" align="right" hspace="5" width="150" height="42" border="0">osmogony.</b></span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">
Contemporary cosmology may seem to pose a more serious challenge to
spatiomaterialism than current theories about the basic particles.
The prevailing belief is that the universe began with a big bang and
has been expanding ever since, and if that is true, spatiomaterialism
false. Indeed, if that is true, it is not possible to explain the
natural world ontologically. There can be no such explanation in a
world that begins with the big bang. (For a recent account of modern
cosmological theories, see </span></font></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/ObjText/"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><u>Hawley</u></span></font></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">,
1998.) </span></font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">B<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_13" align="right" hspace="5" width="150" height="44" border="0">ig
bang cosmogony.</font> According to the big bang theory, space and
matter came into existence at some finite time in the past. (One
group holds that it was about 20 billion years ago, and another group
holds that it was closer to 10 billion years ago). Before that, there
was nothing. No space. No matter. Not even time. At that first moment
in time, matter is supposed to exist in a highly energetic state,
something like a radiation field with very high energy photons
(called gamma rays), and the pressure of this radiation is supposed
to cause the expansion. The big bang might be likened to an
explosion, except there was, of course, no space for it to expand
into. Rather space came into existence with the expansion. That is
when time began. Indeed, the theory assume that what exists besides
energy is spacetime, not space, and thus, that spacetime was at the
beginning tightly curved. The intense radiation field would include
all the forces of nature, including the Higgs field, and the energy
of those fields, being equivalent to mass, is supposed to have given
rise to all the kind of basic particles. The big bang and the
subsequent expansion of space is just the increase from zero in the
separation of basic objects in spacetime, and since it is the
expansion of spacetime itself, and not an event in spacetime, the
expansion can be faster than the speed of light in space. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">As
spacetime itself expanded, the temperature fell. At some point
(between 10 and 100 billion degrees Kelvin), the temperature fell far
enough for nucleons that had been used into the simplest nuclei to be
stable. They were the nuclei of helium (with two protons and two
neutrons each), deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen, with both a proton
and a neutron), and a few other simple nuclei (such as helium-3 and
lithium). </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">As
space expanded further, there was a time about 100,000 years after
the big bang when electrons coupled with protons and other nuclei to
form atoms. As a result, photons could travel long distances through
space without interacting with charged particles. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Subsequent
expansion of space led somehow to the formation of galaxies of stars.
Indeed, what formed were not only galaxies, but also clusters of
galaxies and superclusters of galaxies. It is not at clear how this
would happen, or even how stars would form, because when matter is
distributed evenly throughout space, there are no net gravitational
forces. Presumably, there was an uneven distribution of matter in
space, but its origin is still obscure. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
expansion of the universe continues to this day, though it is assumed
that the expansion is being slowed down by the gravitational
attraction among bits of matter throughout the universe. One of the
unresolved issues is whether there is enough matter in the universe
to bring its expansion to a halt at the end of time, as most
cosmologists would like to believe. A greater quantity of matter
would stop the expansion in a finite period of time, causing a
contraction which would draw all the matter in the universe (and
presumably spacetime) itself back towards a gigantic collapse. But it
now appears that the amount of matter (per unit volume) detected in
the universe is only about 5 to 10% of what would be needed to stop
the expansion, which would force cosmologists to believe that the
universe will expand forever. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">There is a
variant of the big bang theory, the so-called “inflationary”
view, due to Alan Guth, which holds that there was a period of very
rapid, accelerating expansion very early on (10<sup>-33</sup> seconds
after the big bang). In one billionth the time it takes light to
cross the diameter of an atomic nucleus, there was a huge expansion,
increasing distances in space on the order of 10<sup>50</sup> times.
This would transform submicroscopic distances into cosmic distances,
and the reason for this late addition to the big bang theory is that
it would explain why the temperature of the universe is the same no
matter how far we look in any direction from earth. Without this
early inflation, the big bang would have results in a very lumpy
universe. But it implies that the universe is much larger than the
visible universe, though still finite.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>I<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_14" align="right" hspace="5" width="250" height="27" border="0">ncompatibility
of spatiomaterialism with big bang cosmogony.</b></i> The big bang
theory is incompatible with spatiomaterialism for two reasons, one
because it contradicts its assumption about the infinity of time and
the other because it contradicts its assumption about the nature of
space. . </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Time.</i>
Part of what makes spatiomaterialism the best ontological explanation
of the world is its assumption that existence itself is in time. That
assumption about the nature of existence and time entails a certain
interpretation of ontological explanation, for an ontological
explanation of the world explains everything in the world and
everything about the world by showing how it is constituted by
substances, and to hold that existence is in time is to hold that the
substances used as ontological causes endure through time. If
substances never come into existence nor ever go out of existence,
any world constituted by them will be temporally infinite in extent. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">This is
admittedly not the only way of taking ontology to be explanatory. We
have acknowledged that it is possible to hold that time is just an
aspect of what exists. That is what Einsteinians who take spacetime
to be a substances assume about the ultimate nature of the world.
Spatiotemporalism, as I called the Einsteinian ontology, is
compatible with the belief that the universe had a beginning in time,
for it implies merely that there is a limit to the temporal extent of
spacetime as a substance that is not itself in time. That makes it
possible for cosmologists to accept the big bang explanation of the
origin of the world. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The same
difference between substantivalism about space and substantivalism
about spacetime arises concerning the end of the world. It is
possible, according to the big bang theory that the universe might
stop expanding and collapse back on itself, and some cosmologists
hold that such an outcome would mean that time comes to an end. That
would make time finite in the direction of the future as well as
toward the past. Such a belief is compatible with Einsteinian
ontology, because it would merely mean that the temporal dimension of
spacetime as a substance comes to an end in both directions. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">There is,
however, no way to reconcile spatiomaterialism with either a
beginning or an end to the universe it time, because in either case,
it would be to give up its view about the nature of existence and
time and, thereby, the kind of ontological explanation it gives. To
be sure, it is possible for ontologists to hold that existence is in
time and to believe the universe had a beginning. That is the view
that theists hold. The big bang could be just the way in which God
created the world, and the need for such an explanation of the big
bang explains why the Pope authorized discussion of the big bang
theory so early in its career. But theism gives up naturalism, which
is the first of our basic assumption. Any God who could create the
natural world would have to be outside space and time and, thus, not
something that naturalism can accept. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Space.</i>
The other reason that spatiomaterialism cannot accept the big bang
explanation of the origin and development of the universe is what it
believes about space, and two aspects of its assumptions are at
stake. One is its theoretical preference for believing that space is
infinite, and the other is its basic assumption that space is a
substance. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Infinity.</i>
Ontologists would prefer to believe that space is infinite in extent,
as well as in its divisibility, because that is the simplest theory.
The essential nature of each part of space can be defined as having
three-dimensional geometrical relations to every other part of space,
for each part would have such relations to a different, ordered set
of other parts of space. But if space is finite, each part must have
a different essential nature, because each part will have a different
spatial relation to the edge of space. And that is not to mention the
problem in explaining how space could have an end. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If space is
infinite in extent, it is hard to see how space could expand, because
there would be, so to speak, no room for more space. All the places
in space would already exist. How could ontologists make any sense of
the notion?</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Cosmologists
assume that they can take space to be finite in extent without
encountering any problems about the end of space by holding that
spacetime throughout the universe is curved. If spacetime contains
enough matter, then Einsteins general theory of relativity implies
that a spacetime universe will curve back on itself. If we use
two-dimensional space to represent three-dimensional space, then this
possibility is supposed to be modeled by the geometry of the surface
of a sphere (or Riemannian geometry). But that is not a possible form
of spatiomaterialism, because spatiomaterialism replaces the belief
in curved spacetime with the belief in the acceleration of the
inherent motion in absolute, three dimensional space. Apart from
Einsteins general theory of relativity, there is no reason to
believe that space is curved. Indeed, there is no reason to believe
that curved space is even possible, if space is a substance. The
ability to construct a formal axiom system for curved space does not
show that it is ontologically possible. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Substantivalism.</i>
Though it is possible for space to be finite in extend in a
spatiomaterial world, it is not possible for space to expand. To be
sure, if space were finite, the lack of room for the expansion of
space would not be a problem. But there would still be an insuperable
ontological objection to assuming that it expands, because if space
is a substance, the expansion of space would be just another way for
something to come from nothing. The measure of space is the distance
between parts of space in three dimensions, and if distances were
actually increasing, there would have to be more spatial substance
separating the points. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Since
the big bang theory contradicts spatiomaterialism, it is relevant for
ontological philosophy to consider the reasons for believing in the
big bang, for they may provide reasons for doubting that
spatiomaterialism can be used to do philosophy in this new way. There
are two kinds of reasons for believing in big bang cosmogony and the
subsequent expansion of the universe, one theoretical and the other
empirical, and as we shall see, neither is a good reason for doubting
that this is a spatiomaterial world. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>T<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_15" align="right" hspace="5" width="250" height="33" border="0">heoretical
foundation of big bang cosmogony. </b></i>The theory behind big bang
cosmogony is Einsteins general theory of relativity. In 1917,
shortly after completing his general theory of relativity and before
Hubble had discovered evidence of the expansion of the universe,
Einstein himself turned his attention to cosmology. Einstein used the
basic equation of his general theory of relativity to represent the
entire universe, assuming, in effect, that the universe contains a
finite quantity of mass and is finite in extent. A finite universe
was not implausible to Einstein, because he believed in spacetime,
rather than space enduring through time, and a finite spacetime
universe can contain enough mass and energy for spacetime to curve
back on itself, giving the universe as a whole a spherical geometry.
There would be no edges of space to explain, because traveling far
enough in any direction would bring one back to where one started.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Einstein
soon discovered, however, that even in a universe with spherical
geometry, gravitation, being a universal attractive force, would
quickly lead to the collapse of the universe. The tendency toward
gravitational collapse is even greater than in the Newtonian
counterpart of Einsteins way of representing the universe (which
takes the universe to be a finite sphere of material objects in
infinite space all attracting one another). On its own, Einsteins
universe would crash in on itself in about the time required for
light to cross the universe. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">In
order to keep his equation from predicting the collapse of the
universe, Einstein introduced the so-called “cosmological
constant.” It was a perfectly legitimate move, because it was a
constant of integration. That is, his general relativity equation had
to be integrated in order to represent the universe, and Einstein
initially set the constant of integration as zero. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The left
side of Einsteins equation in the general theory is a differential
equation that represents the metric of curved spacetime, while the
right side of his equation represents the presence of mass and energy
in spacetime. To set the constant of integration on the right side
equal to zero was to assume, in effect, that the force of gravitation
falls to zero at great distances. That is what led to the problem of
collapse of the universe.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">It was also
possible to set the constant of integration at something other than
zero. That would represent a repulsive force between material objects
at great distances from one another. It would be a very small force
at short range, such as the solar system, but the repulsive force
would increase with distance. Hence, it would be the dominant force
at large scales, and his general relativity equation would no longer
predict the collapse of the universe. This was the origin of the
cosmological constant. It suggested that there is a form of negative
energy associated with the vacuum, and it could make the universe
static by canceling out the gravitational attraction at great
distances. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
cosmological constant was destined, however,, however, to be
rejected, because it implied that the universe is unstable. Though it
could be used to represent a static state in which gravitation and
long-range repulsion are equal, it was inevitably a precarious
balance. The problem is that gravitation falls off with the square of
distance, while the repulsive force represented by the cosmological
constant increases linearly with distance. Thus, a slight contraction
in the universe would make the gravitational force stronger than the
repulsive force could resist and the universe would collapse. On the
other hand, a slight expansion of the universe would make the
repulsive force stronger than gravitation, and the universe would
expand faster and faster. In either case, it was not likely to remain
the same size. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">When Edwin
Hubbles evidence for the expansion of the universe became known in
1929, it seemed that Einsteins mistake was the attempt to
represent the universe as static. If the universe is expanding, the
size of the universe must be a dynamic phenomenon. Since his
equations had told him, in effect, that the universe is not static,
Einstein retracted his cosmological constant. He called it his
“biggest blunder,” which big bang cosmologists rarely fail to
mention, taking comfort in his agreement. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
equation from Einsteins general theory of relativity was adapted
for big bang cosmogony, because it could be used to represent a
universe in which the initial pressure and outward momentum of the
expansion is countered by the universal gravitational attraction. The
“Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe” is one such theory. It
holds that gravitation will bring the expansion of the universe to a
halt at the end of eternity. Preference for this view has posed a
problem for cosmologists, because all indications are that there is
far less matter in the universe than such a limit to its expansion
would require. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Spatiomaterialists
critique.</i> Ontological philosophy has a different way of
interpreting Einsteinian cosmology which is based on its ontological
explanation of the truth of Einsteins general theory of
relativity. Spatiomaterialism assumes that space is an infinite,
three dimensional substance enduring through time, and it explains
why Einsteins general relativity equation yields true predictions
of gravitational phenomena by holding that the accumulation of matter
at any location in space causes an inbound acceleration of the
inherent motion in the surrounding space. On this view, space is
assumed to be infinite, and the so-called called the “curvature of
spacetime” turns out to be just an acceleration of the inherent
motion of space (that is, an acceleration of the ether, as an aspect
of space). If that effect of matter accumulation of space is what
makes Einsteins equation true, then there much to criticize in its
use as the theoretical underpinning for big bang cosmology. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
most basic objection to Einsteinian cosmogony is the use of
Einsteins question to represent the entire universe. That is to
assume that the universe contains only a finite amount of mass and
energy (that is, matter) and that spacetime is finite. But thus far
in this ontological argument, we have still found no reason to
believe that space is finite in extent or that the total quantity of
matter is finite. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">This
is not to deny that Einsteins general relativity equation can be
used to represent a sizable chunk of the universe. Indeed, the truth
of that representation is what was explained ontologically in the
<font face="Arial, sans-serif">General theory of relativity</font>.
But when we recognize that it represents only a region of space and
the matter contained by that region, we can see that Einsteins
introduction of a cosmological constant was not a mistake at all, but
merely a way of representing the infinity of the space and matter
outside that region.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Einstein
introduced the cosmological constant as a constant of integration in
the integration of his general relativity equation. But he introduced
it on the right-hand side of that equation. Since that side
represents the mass and energy contained in the region, the
cosmological constant that was needed to make the universe static
seems to represent a repulsive force which is counteracting
gravitational attraction. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">However,
the constant of integration could have been introduced on the left
hand side of Einsteins general relativity equation, which
represents the metric of spacetime. That may seem like a mere
mathematical correction to the geometry of curved spacetime. But it
could be interpreted as representing the infinity of space and matter
beyond the region covered by the equation. If the universe is
infinite, rest of the universe is, in effect, tugging at the edges of
the finite region of spacetime represented by the equation, keeping
its overall curvature flat. The cosmological constant does not
represent a negative force that increases with distance, but simply a
constant of integration that must be included in order to take into
account the rest of the infinite universe. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Thus,
ontological philosophy would lead us to see Einsteins greatest
blunder, not as introducing the cosmological constant, but as giving
it up. For that concession comes from failing to recognize that what
is described by his general theory is just a gravitational force that
works through space in a world in which space is an infinite
substance enduring through time, that is, in which space and time are
absolute. Einsteins mistake was to believe in spacetime. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Thus,
we conclude that the truth of Einsteins general theory of
relativity gives us no reason to think that the universe might be
expanding and, thus, no reason to believe that it began with a big
bang. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>E<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_16" align="right" hspace="5" width="250" height="27" border="0">mpirical
foundation of big bang cosmogony.</b></i> Though Einsteins general
theory of relativity is the main theoretical reason for believing in
a big bang, it is probably not the most important reason. The most
persuasive reasons are empirical. It seems to be the best explanation
of three phenomena: the apparent explanation of the universe, the
proportion of helium in the universe, and the background radiation.
However, in a spatiomaterial world, as we shall see, there is another
possible explanation of those same phenomena, and it is far more
plausible. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>H<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_17" align="right" hspace="5" width="150" height="29" border="0">ubbles
law. </i>In 1929, Hubble published the result of his work at the
Mount Wilson gathering evidence about the spectra of distant
galaxies. He reported that galaxies are moving away from earth, and
moving away faster the farther away they already are. That is
Hubbles law.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Hubble
found a red-shift in the electromagnetic radiation from distant
galaxies, that is, a shift of radiation from known sources toward
longer wavelengths, and as far as he could measure (about 10 million
light years), the red-shift increased directly with the galaxys
distance. Such a shift could be explained as a Doppler effect. It is
well established that the wavelength of a signal sent from an object
moving away is elongated. Assuming that the red-shift he had observed
is a Doppler effect, Hubble argued that the galaxies he had observed
were moving away from earth, and his data indicated that the farther
galaxies were away from earth, the faster they were moving. Hubbles
law states that the recession velocity of a galaxy increases directly
with its distance, and the constant of proportionality is Hubbles
constant. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Hubbles
own calculation of his constant is now though to have been off by a
factor of two, though to this day, there is still considerable
uncertainty about what it is. Current measurements seem to cluster
around two different values. (One group finds that galaxies have
about 15 kilometers per second of additional velocity for every
million years of additional distance from earth, while another group
finds them to have about 25 kilometers per second of additional
velocity for every million years of additional distance from earth.) </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
correlation between the distance to a galaxy and the velocity its
recession suggests that the whole universe is expanding, because that
is how it would appear not only from earth, but everywhere, if the
universe were expanding. Though strictly speaking, the red-shift of
distant galaxies would not be a Doppler effect, because their
recession velocity does not come from moving through space, but
rather from the expansion of space itself, it is assumed to come to
the same thing quantitatively. (The wavelength of a photon is
supposed to increase with the expansion of the space it is crossing.)
</font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Hubbles
law makes it possible to calculate the age of universe, because if
galaxies are all receding from one another as that law describes,
there must have been some time in the past at which they were all
located together at the same point. Current estimates tend to cluster
on either an age of about 20 billion years or 10 billion years,
depending on which value of the Hubble constant one accepts. There is
considerable room for error. First, it is necessary to separate out
the “peculiar motion” of galaxies which is caused by local
gravitational effect (and that is a significant factor, since nearby
galaxies are the ones mainly used to measure Hubbles constant).
And if the expansion of the universe has been slowing down because of
the gravitational attraction between galaxies, as cosmologists
assume, then the estimate of the age of the universe should be
considerably lower (by as much as one-third).</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>N<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_18" align="right" hspace="5" width="150" height="27" border="0">ucleosynthesis.</i>
The measured expansion of the universe supports the idea that the
universe began with a big bang, but that idea was first proposed by
George Gamow in 1947. The evidence Gamow offered for such a beginning
is the prediction of the proportion of helium and other light
elements in the universe, which has been confirmed. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Gamow
thought of the initial state of the universe as being nothing but an
intense radiation with a very high temperature. He assumed that the
objects with rest mass would be created by high energy photons.
(Since most of the rest mass in the universe is now composed of
baryons, that would not explain what happened to all the antibaryons
that must have been created at the same time.) And Gamow assumed that
the pressure of radiation at such a high temperature was responsible
for the expansion the universe, though without any space outside into
which it could expand, it had to create its own space. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Particles
would be created, and as the expansion continued, the temperature
would fall. Gamow recognized that at some point the density of
nucleons and the energy of their interaction would be enough for
nucleons fused into small nuclei to be stable (between 10 and 100
billion degrees Kelvin). He explained the proportion of helium (with
two protons and two neutrons) that is found in the universe (about 25
to 28 percent by weight). Similar reasons can be given for the
proportion of matter in the form of deuterium (one proton and one
neutron), helium-3 (two protons and one neutron), and some lithium
and boron. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Since there
is no other plausible explanation of their relative abundance in the
universe, this is good empirical evidence of a period in the past
during which the temperature of the universe was once much higher
than it is now and that is has been falling since then. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>B<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_19" align="right" hspace="5" width="150" height="48" border="0">ackground
radiation.</i> In 1966, Arno Penzias and Robert W. Wilson, discovered
radiation coming from all directions in space, day and night, every
season of the year in the microwave region of the electromagnetic
spectrum. It was the wavelength that one would expect of an object
with a temperature of 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. They
recognized that the radiation must have a cosmic source, and they
argued that it must have been caused by the big bang and the
subsequent expansion of the universe. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
radiation must come from a period long after the nucleosynthesis
discovered by Gamow, because for a long period of time, the
electromagnetic radiation would have been sufficiently energetic to
break any bonds that electrons might form with the nuclei bouncing
around at the time. About 100,000 years after the big bang itself the
universe would have expanded enough for the temperature to fall to a
level that would allow atoms to be stable. Neutralizing the charges
of electrons and nuclei in that way allowed photons to pass
unhindered for great distances. The period at which the universe
became transparent would explain the origin of the cosmic background
radiation. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">These
empirical reasons for believing in the big bang are independent of
general relativity. Even though spatiomaterialism can reject
Einsteinian cosmology because of the assumptions it makes, these
observations are still evidence for the big bang. But since they are
just observations, they support the belief that the universe has been
expanding ever since a big bang only if that is the best explanation
of them. Thus, the empirical foundation for contemporary cosmogony
can be undermined by offering a better explanation of those
observations. There is at least one way that spatiomaterialism can do
just that.</span></font></font></font></p>
</body>
</html>