This supplement extends the ideas technical support for the COI Universe started in Supplement 3 with some experimental observations. The primary focus is to predict and confirm the observed galactic distribution.
In the COI universe description, starting in Appendix C4 and extended in Supplement 3, I have introduced several ways to view the creation. I call these analogues, that is, an observable physical process that is like the process by which the universe was formed. I have talked about a shell of energy that contacts from the outside to the centre of the universe and also called this a big-bubble, and the film around the bubble is treated like a membrane, or an event horizon. I have also likened the energy in, or released through, this shell as like a wave, a shock-wave, surging into the centre of the universe.
The mechanism by which energy is released through the shell has been likened to:
The energy so released continues to behave like the original big-bubble, shrinking, dividing and disintegrating into smaller solar system bubbles that may in turn generate planets, moons and stars, or on occasions merge to form nebulas. All this happens at the speed of light.
The resltant clumping and distribution of stars in galaxies is attributed to a vortex like process. Even the distribution of planets in a solar system is viewed as a single shrinking bubble progressively releasing smaller planetary bubbles. So the broad scale disc and spiral distribution of matter is explainable. Explaining something in a consistent way, that encompasses a plethora of observations, is a pretty big achievement, but using the proposed mechanism to confirm and predict new observations is the ultimate goal.
Thus far, I have a lot of really good feeling explanations that help virtualise a once off process at the start of time. This virtualisation is essential because the process unfolds as the very laws of physics are themselves taking shape. Existing scientific theories like the Big Bang are also a virtualisation where we tolerate just about anything impossible (supernatural), with the hope that once the virtualisation ends, the physical distribution of matter in the universe can account for what we see today. The Big Bang virtualisation ends when its expansion phase ends. This theory has been found wanting in so many ways. For example, we cannot explain the subsequent clumping into galaxies and solar systems using the known laws of physics. The COI model looks like it can do better.
The COI model does have some similar concepts to existing scientific proposals. The COI model pictures a collapsing shockwave or event horizon while conventional models invoke shockwaves from exploding stars as a mechanism to compress clouds of matter to kick start a new star’s formation. …Not that good and many questions. Multiple universes are also imagined, and for the lack of anything more concrete, these are pictured as bubbles. I don’t think any physical attribute of these universes so proposed is anything like a real bubble, but our minds crave something that we can at least conceptualise. The COI Universe model also has bubbles and shockwaves but they are totally different to those in the Big Bang theory.
One day, someone plotted the real physical distribution of galaxies and observed vast empty spaces, voids, of the order of 100 mega-parsecs, about 300 million light years,. The galaxies are spread out in filaments around these voids. This distribution visually looked like bubbles that we see floating on water, and hence the term of ‘a bubbly universe’ arose. But the COI model talks about shrinking bubbles of PTE and now the bubble does reflect the real attributes of a spherical universe and the shell of energy around it. This concept of an initial big-bubble remains as an important analogue, but I need to stay with a collapsing shell of energy to be a little less ambiguous in the following discussion.
I still like to think of this collapsing shell as like a shock wave or creation wave that spills energy as it surges into the centre. But in order to explain the distribution of galaxies I will be talking about energy flowing around the surface of this shell in predictable standing waves, perhaps likened to vibrations in the shell. As already explained in Supplement 3, energy in the shell is continually building up due to compression and conversion of PTE, and continually leaking out to fuel vacuum energy required to create space–time. Once the energy build-up reaches some threshold, a burst of energy is released that results in a galaxy or cluster of galaxies being formed. But such an event also triggers shockwaves that travel around the shell. These waves will cause peaks in the shell’s local energy density just like waves on the surface of water. That is what I want to examine in more detail here.
I had long noticed the patterns of light reflected from waves under certain conditions. This had intuitively held a confirmation of the COI model’s mechanism for the release of galaxies from the shell of energy, the big-bubble. In March 2016, I borrowed my daughter’s camera and went for a walk in the shallow water at the beach. The pictures I took, and the amazing details I saw, are all detailed in:
You simply have to read that to fully appreciate what I will described in the following sections. In this articles I will just summarise some of the observations and provide links to the best examples from the photo-shoot, should you wish to see the pictures without all the detail.
There were intermittent small waves running up onto the shore but independent of this there were undulations, ‘standing waves’, on the surface of the water. The crests of these waves focused the sunlight into patterns that were easy to photograph. (Figure 5) At times and at different depths these patterns were quite variable and really quite beautiful to behold.
These undulations must now be pictured as flowing over the surface of the shell of energy as is collapsed inwards. Where the peaks or crests are, that is, where the light is focused, is where the galaxies are released. Hence we expect the pattern of voids and filaments as observed.
One great surprise to me was my picture of the wave as it rolled up onto the shore. The magnified view shows a mosaic of small voids. (Figure 10) This must have been produced by a turbulent effect that I don’t pretend to understand. The point was that, in what I expected to be the chaos trailing behind the wave front, (analogous to the shell of energy), consistent 3D voids were formed. So, through the mathematical explanation is beyond my technical understanding, the physical reality is before me.
The second great surprise and delight that I discovered during the photo-shoot, were small ripples that seemed to appear intermittently with no apparent cause. I reasoned that it was due to the intersection of two or more small surface waves that caused a peak of energy. The peak rose up and as it collapsed back it caused the ripples. I was lucky enough to catch this peak as a dome with surrounding ripples and this was very evocative of a galactic disc with a bulge in the centre. (Figure 12 and Figure 13)
The final surprise was the observation of small ‘eddies’ around many of the crests. I don’t know whether these will have some impact under the COI model, perhaps explaining some detail in the galactic distribution. I wonder whether redshift quantisation might be related to this. That will be the subject of possible later sections.
The main ocean waves were flowing more or less straight onto the beach, maybe closer to 75 degrees, but when I looked at the light patterns, the direction was not usually clear. This was especially so in the case where the wave was rolling up onto the beach. Well, that was OK. In the deeper water, the undulations were not from the main waves flowing towards the shore, but secondary waves and reflections off the shore. And when the wave was rolling up the beach there was a chaotic turbulence at work.
The trouble is, I was hoping that, under the COI model, some characteristic of the shape of the voids and the distribution of galaxies around the voids, would reveal a flow toward the centre of the universe. Now perhaps this is possible to detect even though somewhat chaotic processes are involved, but you need to know what you are looking for. With this in mind, have a look at the diagram labelled “The Large Scale Organization of Galaxies in Space” at:
This view is a slice through the universe, an arc, as viewed from the earth. In the COI model, which has a spherically symmetric universe with our Milky Way galaxy at the centre, it is the view when you slice the universe in half. But popular science asserts that the universe is the same in all directions. It also asserts that the universe is evenly spread out, but the vast voids have put a little tarnish on that one. Popular science would expect this view of the voids to be statistically the same from any other position or direction in the universe.
The pictures I have generated of ocean undulations approximate the anticipated distribution of galaxies over the surface of the shell, not across an arc. I would love to see someone plot out the positions of galaxies across the surface of a shell, say 10 million light years thick, at various redshifts. It should not be any different on average to an arc, but if I am lucky, it will be different. The view across an arc cuts through the edge of many voids, not the centre, so the structure and packing of the voids is obscured and cluttered. Perhaps a view of the galactic distribution for a band or shell at a fixed distance would be more focused. ...I just don’t know.
The chaotic mosaic of voids I saw as the wave rolled up the beach did not have an obvious direction of flow, but perhaps a statistical examination might reveal some correlation. The human eye can do some amazing image processing but it’s a little subjective rather than objective at times. When I look as some pictures of galactic distribution, particularly the one referenced above, I sense a flow toward the centre. I have seen waves washing up sand banks and they are not always straight up. There are swirls and irregularities in the ripples of sand. Whether an objective assessment can detect a preferred direction of flow or not, the COI model has at least predicted a pattern of voids.
When I first saw the dome I pictured the cluster at the centre of a galaxy and when I saw the ripples moving out, I could imagine the disc and spiral arms being released. I also imagined how this might trigger a mini shockwave that would cause part of the shell to flake off. All that was beautifully subjective, but the important point was that a local, excessive peak of energy was redirected into an approximately circular zone that subsequently dissipated itself sideways over time. The shell is surging into the centre of the universe, so as this energy ripples out, it may trigger a sequence of energy spills.
Then I started to wonder if the dome and subsequent ripples might not be just a single galaxy, but a mechanism to release a cluster or sequence of galaxies. Certainly you can imagine how one release of energy from the shell would send out ripples that contribute to further releases. If you look at the sample pictures, you will see that the ripples are quite variable and seem to depend on the shape of the crest when it was formed. What this means is that simple geometric considerations can account for a lot of different ways for energy to be released.
The eddies are fairly clear when you zoom Figure 5 or Figure 8. These eddies seem to run parallel to the ridges or crests in the light pattern. However I don’t think they ‘ripple’ out from the crests but rather, they form along with the crests. They are much finer and smaller and often just on one side of the crest. They appear to me as a higher frequency component of the surface waves, a harmonic. I suspect that the crests move in the direction of the eddies. But if eddies are also present in the COI model shell, then they may explain sub-structure in a group or sequence of galaxies.
I have described the dome as a peak of energy that rises up and then falls back. This is easy to picture in an ocean wave, but in the shell of energy there is no obvious ‘gravity’ equivalent to cause the ‘fall back’ action. So I want to consider this for a moment.
Periodic waves travel through water in an almost loss-less manner. Waves travelling in different directions can intersect and effectively carry on. But when the energy gets too much for the height of the water to hold that energy and still allow the elliptic flow of particles, this breaks down and energy is spilled. Well, that is what I remember from my university days and that may be a little rusty by now. Let’s just say some elastic limit is exceed and the normal efficient flow of energy through the wave is broken.
I have described a shell of energy. The energy density in the shell is pictured as proportional to its width. When I see waves undulating in height on the sea it’s exactly the same as I would picture the energy in the shell where the width or depth of the shell varies. So the ocean surface is a good analogue to the surface of the shell.
I now need to clarify a cosy little assumption behind the COI model. The shell is pictured as collapsing but it is a barrier, holding back the energy inside and only allowing the necessary vacuum energy to be released (leak out) to create space–time. This has been described as something akin to diffusion or tunnelling. Effectively, the surplus energy is trapped inside the shell until it builds up to a point where it can spill over the potential barrier posed by the shell. So the shell is effectively dragging all the energy along with it and that is the analogue to gravity in the ocean wave.
The following comments seek further ways to verify predictions from the COI model. You have got to be pretty keen to be bothered with this...
In Figure 16 , the eddies and concentric ripples in the bottom left, seem to have a similar wavelength. Perhaps the eddies are just a little shorter in wavelength. Redshift quantisation occurs at about 1 million light year steps. If eddies or ripples are to account for that, then their wavelength is going to be of the order of 1 million light years. So there is something to test.
In appendix C4 I had suggested that this Redshift quantisation was the result of the periodic build-up of energy in the shell. Two factors contribute to this build-up of energy density. There is the conversion of new PTE as the shell shrinks, as well as a compression of the existing energy in the shell as the surface area of the shell reduces. The compression effect is expected to be faster as the radius of the shell decreases. I wondered if that would cause detectably more rapid build-up and hence smaller voids closer in. During the photoshoot I noticed that the wave patterns were smaller in shallower water. So perhaps the oscillations travelling around the shell would also be of higher frequency closer in and that might also fuel an expectation of smaller voids closer in.
Closer in, and hence after more time has elapsed, the oscillations in the shell may couple and get in sync. This is at the speed of light so there is not time for the ‘sync’ to spread uniformly across the whole shell, but perhaps increasingly larger segments of the shell would get in step. Would this result in larger amplitudes of the surface waves? Would that in turn have some discernible effect on galactic distribution? It’s too hard to predict, but in this strange game, all you can do is make a computer simulation and play with the constants to see what works. Larger amplitudes might trigger bigger spills that in turn means longer to build-up the energy again and hence bigger voids.
In my pictures of ocean waves, the ‘voids’ are of the order of 10 times the wavelength of the eddies and ripples. But the voids we see in the universe exist in the scale of 100 Mpc, or about 300 million light years, which is some 300 times the scale of the redshift quantisation. Does this discount ripples as the source of redshift quantisation? No, because the surface of the sea and the shell of energy are totally different. Even in the sea the wave crests changed significantly in deeper water.
Perhaps the only thing I can suggest is to propose an energy density of PTE. Subtract from that the energy density that must continuously leak out to supply vacuum energy demands. Then postulate a sort of upper and lower hysteresis limits for the energy density in the shell. Once the energy gets above the upper limit it spills down to the lower limit. The dimensions of the voids then represents the amount of PTE that must be converted or compressed to build the energy level up again in the shell. The amount of energy spilled has to account for the known matter in the universe.
If you don’t want to use a hysteresis type model, then perhaps you can set some amplitude (peak energy level) for the surface oscillations in the shell. The actual energy spilled is then dependent upon how often and by how much the peaks in amplitude of the surface waves exceed the potential barrier. Either way, if you can make the resulting pattern of spills resemble the observed data, and account for all the energy in vacuum energy and in the known matter, you win a prize!