THE MALTA COSMOLOGY TEMPLATE



Chapter 02 - Moment Zero






PARTS

Part 0200
Moment Zero Home


Part 0201
Kickstarter


Part 0202
Moment Zero Physics


Part 0203
Moment Zero Dimensions


Part 0204
Post Moment Zero Expansion


Part 0205
The Age of the Universe


Moment Zero Selfproofs



















Moment Zero Selfproofs


Research in the Current Paradigm is devolutionary in character. There are two main forms of this devolution: either discoveries are made and explanations are sought or extrapolations are made and proof is sought. 

In contrast, the Malta Template is resolutely evolutionary. Following the Darwin Templature methodology, it kickstarts with the least substantial object that can be justified by the current factbase and evolves it forward in time and upward in size. Thereafter, the Template must selfprove by evolving from the kickstarting object into a Universe that looks and acts exactly as does the Universe about us - if it cannot do this the Template is wrong and must be rethought.

SELFPROOF 0204:     HORIZON PROBLEM

CURRENT PARADIGM
  • THE HORIZON PROBLEM is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the late 1960s, primarily by Charles Misner. It points out that different regions of the universe have not "contacted" each other because of the great distances between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given that the transfer of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can occur, at most, at the speed of light.  (Wikipedia - 06 Apr 2016)
MALTA TEMPLATE
COMMENTARY

A restatement of the Horizon Problem is this:
  • The photons of the cosmic background radiation have the same temperature to within 0.01%, no matter from which direction they come.
  • This suggests the photons were once sufficiently close together that their temperature equalised.
  • Per the Current Paradigm, the diameter of the Universe at 10-43 of a second after the Big Bang was one Planck Length.
  • If lightspeed is a cosmological speed limit, and if the age of the Universe is 13.75 billion years, and if the diameter of the Universe a fraction of a second after the Big Bang was one Planck Length, the diameter of the Universe must now be 27.4 billion lightyears.
  • However, observations appear to show the visible Universe alone has a diameter of 156 billion lightyears.
  • How then were the photons of the cosmic background radiation, given the age of the Universe and its apparent diameter, once close enough together to equalise their temperature.
* * * * *

The Big Bang Standard Model is a devolutionary model that has, in the absence of any facts that can stop it, been extrapolated back to a Universe with a diameter of one Planck length at 10-43 of a second after the Big Bang. This point is a considerable distance beyond being justifiable by facts and is almost certainly a logictrap: an information spiral from which there is no apparent escape because essential information is missing.  

The cosmology community may not recognise that it has created a logictrap but it certainly recognises the conundrums that arise because of it - things that don't seem quite right or which do not work out as they should. One such is the Horizon Problem. Put simply, if the Horizon Problem is real, the Big Bang Standard Model is flawed.

The Horizon Problem is rooted in two of the Big Bang Standard Model's assumptions. The first is that the Universe at 10-43 of a second after the Big Bang is extraordinarily tiny. The second is that lightspeed is a cosmic speed limit that cannot be exceeded by mass or energy. If these assumptions are thought of as canon, and they generally are, the Universe cannot be as it appears to be.

A number of solutions have been proposed to resolve the Horizon Problem with by far the most popular being Inflation Theory which inserts a brief period of exponential, superluminal, expansion into the accepted Big Bang timetable. Inflation Theory does its job. It makes the Big Bang Standard Model run to schedule. It doesn't do it with any grace, however, being very much a sticking plaster repair. Initially, no reason was provided as to why the early Universe should undergo a sudden moment of expansion. Since then a number of explanations have surfaced although none are selfevidently true and none have any absolute empirical proving.

The Malta Template doesn't need Inflation Theory because the two factors that trigger the Horizon Problem don't arise.
  • Diameter:     The Universe at Moment Zero cannot be reduced to a diameter of less than a Planck Length because all the objects in the Universe are either gravitons or are made of gravitons - and gravitons are subject to the Rejectivity Law (one object cannot occupy a place in space and time already occupied by another object of the same type). Consequently, the Universe at Moment Zero has a notional but justifiable diameter of one billion lightyears which is many billions of times larger than it is assumed to be in the Big Bang Standard Model. 
  • Lightspeed:     There is no cosmic speed limit in the Malta Template. Photons travel at lightspeed, and only lightspeed, for mechanical reasons. Objects more massive than photons can come close to lightspeed but can never actually reach it, again for mechanical reasons. Meanwhile, objects less massive than photons, notably gravitons and pettyblackholes, can and do travel at and beyond lightspeed. 
Immediately after Moment Zero, the Universe did go through a period of superluminal expansion but this was not a special event of the kind proposed in the inflation theories. It was a consequence of laws of physics that have been long established and which can be tested empirically at minimal cost. 

CONCLUSION

The Horizon Problem is a cosmological mirage in that it is set in a Universe that, if the Malta Template is correct, doesn't exist. The two assumptions that underpin the Horizon Problem do not evolve into existence in the Template. That they are strongly believed in by many cosmologists (witness the popularity of the Inflation Theories that have been conceived to counter them) doesn't make them right. It does, however, make them dangerous to science because they have become quasifacts which are: 

assumptions that have become the foundation for a sequence of
multigenerational assumptions and are now treated as facts in all but name.
All assumptions should be challenged regularly but
when doing so risks bringing down the "house of cards"
there is a reluctance to do so and
anyone trying to do so tends to be marginalised.  







Comments and suggestions:  peter.ed.winchester@gmail.com

Copyright 2013 Peter (Ed) Winchester




REVISIONS
  • 20 April 2014 - page revised to 3-section format.
  • 10 May 2014 - minor revisions to text and layout.
  • 29 Mar 2015 - Major revisions to layout, content, and numbering.
  • 06 Apr 2016 - Minor revisions to content. 
  • 21 Apr 2017 - teels changed to gravitons.
  • 27 Jul 2017 - revisions to content.