Choose language

Valery Valius

Instead of a picture

I will add a few words about me, why I dropped Physics, Geophysics and after years of vacillation and hanging in life became an artist.

I was a bad physicist. Physics was easy for me at school. I don't know why. At the University it was difficult. It is a very large and had complex mathematics beyond my abilities and beyond the knowledge of mathematics, which provides a mandatory program of the physics Faculty. Besides there were interests in the environment, which were strongly heated by a trip to the geological party in Siberia, other interests of youth. A sharp change in the profession was prevented by the threat of getting into the army. I did not want to be in the barracks instead of the University. And when the choice of specialization came, I after some wanderings in the departments left in Geophysics. And later at work I went into programming, to simple codes of the computer, away from physics, Geophysics and seismology, to which these programs concerned.

Challenges in Geophysics are difficult too. I don't even know how to begin about it. I did what was required. On seismic waves in the Earth I determined its structure, selected models on the computer. May be I did that too well. In a situation where there was no one model that was consistent with the seismic data, computer found hundreds. And the task was meaningless. I was ashamed of myself, especially after receiving the PhD degree. I was made a senior fellow, and I could tell the younger nothing except to program that was recommended.

Many years have passed. Now I'm an artist. Good one. I did not graduate from any school in this specialty. The most creative, the metaphysical element of work is access to the theme of the picture. Different content comes during this process to mind.

You see, waves propagating medium blurred. For example, if lightning strikes close by, the sound is sharp and short. And whatremotely - so rumbling. To calculate it is not possible, it depends on the location of clouds, terrain, and why to do it.

With seismic waves happens approximately the same. Blow in the epicenter falling apart on the waves of various types: volume, surface, reflected etc. They have different speeds, picture of seismograms with increasing of distance is spreading. And even if you take only one wave, for example, longitudinal, probably she is spreading too. Calculation also will not work. The structure of the Earth is not known, many of heterogeneity are comparable with wavelength. Mathematical apparatus to calculate such waves does not exist.

Of course, waves can blur different. But in General, spectrum shifts to more slow oscillations. The red shift you can say. And nobody explain that as effect of Doppler - broadening of the Earth. The absurdity is obvious.

In relation to the Universe and the red shift of the light of the stars it's done. Universe is expanding, even with the acceleration, Big Bang out of nothing, dark energy. They dance from the effect of Doppler. Seemingly they reached the point of absurdity, in mathematics there is a proof by contradiction, but no, they insist.

According to the theory there is no time in the photon. How it flew out of the stars, so it came to us, even if it was flying for billions of years. But a lot of what happened during that time with it.

And so on. This part of the article - about a red shift - I rewrote a dozen times. In painting I also use only techniques that allow corrections. You start like one job, and ends with another. With physics general arguments and attempt of some calculations proved to be insufficient. I had read articles on the topic. Many were for me as a Chinese puzzle. But some were also distinct.

Here are the results of my search on the Internet:

1. Academician V.A. Rubakov. "The dark energy in the Universe". Article describes the existing theory (in Russian).http://www.biophys.ru/archive/bulletin/vzn_07_p90.pdf

2. S.Perlamutter. "The measurement of acceleration of cosmic expansion on the supernova." (Nobel Lecture one of the discoverers of dark energy.) http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/perlmutter-lecture.pdf

3. Alemanov Sergey. "Quantum Hubble law v_n = nH₀ (quantum cosmological red shift law)." (in Russian)http://alemanow.narod.ru/hubble.htm

This article puts a cross on the previous two. Neither the Big Bang nor the dark energy. Despite its awesome name, its essence is quite simple. He explains the red shift by the lifetime of the photon, not by the speed of the source.He assumes that the photon is not completely stable, that in one period the light loses the same negligible fraction of its energy. Accordingly, the smaller the frequency a photon has, the less is the lost fraction. Since Perlmutter's data can be used to determine this fraction, at least for one galaxy, the coincidence of the results can be made complete. What Alemanov demonstrates.

Is it so, who knows? The curve of absorption of light energy by vacuum as a function of frequency has not been investigated.

Personally, I really liked it. Unfortunately, it's not for me to judge who is right.

So work by S.B.Alemanov on the aging of light is good at least as an alternative to the previous two. Yes, it's some other physics, with the laws of preservation there the situation is unusual. But, maybe, they are not always appropriate. If, say, we pour the contents of a bottle on glasses, it is clear that how much was in the bottle, so much is in the glasses. And if we draw from the stream or the ocean or splash it there, then it is impossible to check the accuracy of the law, say, to a glass or to a drop. It does not follow from this that one can not scoop out of a stream or spill it into it. We can say that in Alemanov vacuum plays the role of the ocean.

According to theory, there is no time in a photon. With whatever properties it flew out of the star, these are the ones with which it arrived. Even if it flew for billions of years. The speed of light in a vacuum “c” is a great constant. Time stops at this speed. But light can travel at a lower speed. For example, that's why it refracts in glass. Or used in fiber optic lines. By definition, there are no particles in a vacuum. But there are as many different fields as you like. Now a new science has emerged - “nonlinear optics”. That the superposition of electromagnetic waves is not absolute, that they can interact. That is, influence each other. Maybe in such cases the clock in the photon begins to tick. And he's getting old. Toward redshift. Over billions of years of wandering around the Universe, you never know what kind of troubles he got into.

And then I want to say a few words about dark matter. Of course, in a certain amount it exists. At least because the Earth is a dark matter. But that its amount is tens times greater than the visible mass, while the nature of its main mass is unknown, it is somehow strange.

The rotation of galaxies is a complex and very diverse process.

Some inconsistencies with theories are hitting the eyes. For example, the shapes of spirals somehow do not agree with the speed of rotation of the galaxy and its age. And barred galaxies? Up to some distance from the center, they rotate as a whole, and then turn into a spiral.

It is natural to assume that the distribution of stars in galaxies is determined not only by gravity, but also by electromagnetic interactions. Like at school in a physics lesson, pour iron filings on a sheet of drawing paper, bring a magnet from below, you can still twist it. Look at sawdust. Why not a picture of a galaxy? Perhaps electromagnetic interactions in galaxies are not weaker than gravitational ones. Black holes are believed to be at the centers of galaxies. Maybe even a few. They shoot jets. These are streams of charged particles with a length comparable to the size of a galaxy. It looks like a long conductor of electric current, the magnetic field of which decreases as 1/r, where r is the distance to the conductor. And the gravitational forces decrease faster, like 1/r2.

So the analysis of the rotation of galaxies is far from complete and not so clearly indicates the presence of dark matter.

Now, it seems, that is that, and I can finally start paint lying Venus and the male figures in the background.

P.S. It took six months. Venus painted, some more works has done. But I left feeling that I did not finish, why I do not like dark energy. Of course, the dark energy is unknowable topic for me, and for those who are smarter than me, is not yet known. So what? The world is full of unknowable topics for example such as God. And yet, much is written and said about Him, and at times quite meaningful. And if you take the science, in which areas of it everything is known?

So, in the article by V.A.Rubakov, along with descriptions of the theories, about the discovery itself said the following:

1.3. The universe is expanding with acceleration

The turning point came in 1998-1999, when the two groups from the United States, one under the direction of Reiss and B. Schmidt, and the other - S.Perlmutter, reported the results of observations of distant supernova type 1a. These observations indicated that the universe is expanding with acceleration ...

A few words about the type 1a supernova. This - the thermonuclear explosion that ends the life of some types of stars. Detailed theoretical description of these explosions are still missing, but on the basis of observations of near supernova empirical regularities have been established for the determination of their absolute luminosity, ie, to determine the energy they emit in the relatively short flash. In other words, the type 1a supernova are "standard candles": knowing the absolute luminosity and measuring the apparent brightness (flow of energy coming to the Earth), we can determine the distance to each of them - the greater the distance, the smaller the apparent brightness. At the same time, you can detemine the speed of remove from us of each of the supernova (using the Doppler effect). Supernovas are very bright objects, they can be seen at great distances. In other words, distant supernova that we observe today exploded a long time ago, and therefore the speed of their runaway determine the pace of expansion of the Universe back in the distant past. Thus the observation of supernovae of type 1a can determine the pace of expansion in the relatively early stages of evolution of the Universe (7 billion years ago, and even somewhat earlier) and trace the dependence of the rate of the time. That is what made it possible to establish that the universe is expanding with an acceleration.

I note only that there is not a word about the amount and accuracy of the data that led to such a global opening. Therefore it is necessary to turn to S.Perlmutter.

I'll briefly retell my impressions about S.Perlmuttera Nobel lecture. There are excellent technique supernovas search. Time-consuming determination of their spectra. This is followed by multi-stage procedure of data selection, dropping unnecessary. To understand the intricacies I have neither the capacity nor the strength. As a rule, lecture have reference to the results described in other studies, and those, I think, have their own a bibliography. Etc.

Still, there are doubts about the legality of some of the procedures. Something that looks like the fitting of the data under the desired result. Well, a little bit. For examples:

Supernovas of spiral galaxies are discarded, data only from the oval are taken. Galaxies scatter in different ways?

Too red supernovas and peculiar supernovas were discarded. Peculiar translated into Russian as special. Looks like that data which does not fit into the scheme, were discarded.

Supernovas have different duration. They were reduced to a single standard, respectively, adjusting the brightness at maximum light. Otherwise the result was not sufficiently precise. However, if not only the duration of outbreaks differ, but also the amount of released energy, then such a procedure is unjust. And how an option the standard duration affect the data?

Finally, the result is:

Figure 25. Fig. 25a top – Fig 25b bottom. Our supernova data clearly didn’t fit with any ofthe decelerating options shown in Fig. 25a. To fit the data, we now had to add curves thatare currently accelerating, as shown in the blue region of Fig. 25b. The best fit curve wasdecelerating for about the first seven billion years, and then accelerating for the most recentapproximately seven billion years. This was the surprising result the supernovae wereshowing us. (Based on figure from Perlmutter 2003.)

Indeed, if we draw, but at least to the eye, the curve through a given points, it seems bent down. And considering only gravity it must be bent up (braking). Currently, the curvature is zero. Maybe just because the data is more accurate when closer to us in time?

I also note that the inventors of dark energy refer to the energy conservation law without any respect. They have dark energy density and, accordingly, its influence does not decrease with the increase in volume of the Universe, as is the case with gravity, but remains constant. That is, its quantity increases with an increase in volume.

The lecture does not say a word about the cosmological redshift. Its essence is simple: if space expands, then the photon expands with it. Accordingly, its wavelength increases, and the frequency decreases. There is an additive to the redshift and it seems that distant objects are being deleted faster than in fact. Is dark energy due to its appearance just a mistake in the calculations?

It looks like they have something too clever with their formulas. And a slight bend of the curve to approximate a dozen points on the graph above is not sufficient for such a radical change of our understanding of the Universe. Although, of course, hundreds of people worked on getting these point, using the most modern equipment, including a telescope in space. Most of them, however, to solve specific technical problems. Maybe the authors desperately needed to cover up the vagueness of the result with utter fiction?

Situations with dark matter and dark energy are similar - estimates of their quantity in the universe are huge, and what is this is unknown. Perhaps this is simply how they called the discrepancy between observational results and theoretical explanations. The research was labor-intensive and expensive. And the authors, instead of admitting that they could not explain the results, announced grandiose discoveries.

Of course, I understand that the entrance to theoretical physics is closed to me like almost to all other people. It opened to particularly gifted ones and, moreover, who received a specific education. In religions, situation is similar. Another world is revealed to only a few prophets. And, thank God, at the present time their revelations are not evidence. Well, then the clergy popularize it.

And I just distracted from painting for reflection. During work, you have to trust what comes to mind. In this case, thinking took a lot of time. I'm bored with the topic. It seems final.