Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

 Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

Seifert et al. 2024

https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/537/1/L55/7926647?login=false

https://phys.org/news/2024-12-dark-energy-doesnt-lumpy-universe.html

Another article on imaginary dark energy. Looks like theorists are finally admitting it is imaginary after all. But now fortunately we have new improved Timescape. Astrophysics has its latest excuse for the continued failure of the BBT to explain any of the data since the priest LeMaitre recycled the creation myth as an expanding universe. His attempt to explain why Hubbles observed redshifted light over distance was not consistent with Einsteins’ photon model. A photon model which incidentally, predicts that photons cannot change frequency over distance. 

It’s worth pointing out the fact that Hubble himself didn’t believe in expansion. Being a good scientist he knew that cosmological redshift must just be EMR changing frequency over distance rather than an imaginary divine event at the beginning of time. Because the fact is that the Sn1a data that led the BBT community to scratch their collective heads in 1998, is not showing any expansion at all let alone acceleration. 

Best chi fits of SN1a data to z=0 here show that the SN1a data best fits a non expanding model. 

And this contradiction between no observed time dilation in any data and imaginary dilation predicted by the BBT expansion was starting to look really bad for the BBT.

The best way out of this conundrum is to change the data to make it look like there’s a Big Bang, even when the JWST and other data shows there isn’t.

And now thanks to Timescape, a new improved better excuse has been invented and the BBT is safe again for a while. To account for observed non dilated lightcurves and various other BBT predictions recently refuted by the JWST data, Timescape offers the BBT a way out of its self induced mess. By saying that yes the universe is expanding, but it’s just that imaginary effects due to general relativity mean that it just doesn’t look like it’s expanding!! Which is why the data shows no expansion. 

All you need is faith.

Earth’s inner core may be changing shape

 Once again predictions made in my 2009 paper published here have been verified. Further confirming the predictions made by my Variable speed Inner Core Earth Dynamo model and outlined in the paper at the above link. To summarise: In the paper I proposed that earths inner solid core rotates at different speeds to the mantle and the more liquid outer core. Sometimes faster sometimes slower and creating the field reversals seen in the geomagnetic record. And that the inner cores rotation speed is dictated by an off centered asymmetric volume that changes over time to become elongated in the north south axis to flattened at the equator. It is this changing shape which dictates its relative speed to the outer liquid core and the mantle. In the same way that a spinning ballet dancer can increase or decrease their rotational speed by stretching out or retracting their arms to speed up or slow down their rotation.

The irony is that when I initially tried to publish in a peer reviewed journal in 2009, the paper was rejected because I had no evidence that the earths core was changing or had ever changed shape as my model had proposed! 

Quantum Theory refuted again

Looks like they discovered that the so called “ Space Quantisation” explanation for the Stern Gerlach theory was incorrect. The split beams can be explained classically. And the theoretical discreet jumps in an atoms reaction to an applied external field never materialised once technology was actually able to measure an effect so small. It seems that recent published research found that the atomic response to an applied field went up exponentially as described by a classical model. Rather than in discreet jumps as QT has erroneously claimed since 1922. More on this can be read here... https://phys.org/news/2024-12-particle-mass.html

“ When a magnetic field is applied to any material, the energy levels of electrons inside that material become quantized into discrete levels called Landau levels, Shao explained. The levels can only have fixed values, like climbing a set of stairs with no little steps in between. The spacing between these levels depends on the mass of the electrons and the strength of the magnetic field, so as the magnetic field increases, the energy levels of the electrons should increase by set amounts based entirely on their mass—but in this case, they didn't.

Using the high-powered magnet in Florida, the researchers observed that the energy of the Landau level transitions in the ZrSiS crystal followed a completely different pattern of dependence on the magnetic field strength. Years ago, theorists had labeled this pattern the "B2/3 power law," the key signature of semi-Dirac fermions. “ Yinming Shao et al 2024

Stern Gerlach experiment 1922

In the original 1922 Stern Gerlach experiment the single horizontally propagating incident beam was split into two ‘up’ or ‘down’ diverging beams. An observation not consistent with predictions of the time which were that the path deflection angles in a classical model should be deflected up or down in only an even range of angles. Here it is proposed that net translational forces on a dipole in an inhomogeneous field can correctly model the observed split paths for a classical model. In that the dipoles will initially experience a range of very small path deflections via the up or down net translational forces on them as they enter the apparatus. A deflection force dependent upon the specific angle of the N-S axis of polarity of each incident dipole relative to the applied external N-S field in the apparatus. This separation of the beam into 2 paths, one up and one down is effectively a classical version of the “space quantisation” often referred to in QT. After entering the field, the dipoles will then have been sorted into two up and down paths as well as each path having a range of these very small different angled path deflections from the horizontal incident path. They will then all each experience an additional amount of net translational forces applied equally on all aligned dipoles as they propagate through the 3.2 cm length of the external field. Separating the 2 up and down sets into two distinct paths.

Introduction

Spin is a theoretical construct that seems to be preventing Quantum theorists from finding simpler solutions to experiments based on classical models only. Here it is proposed that if atoms are treated as magnetic dipoles subject to inhomogeneous magnetic fields, then the Stern Gerlach experiment can be explained sufficiently by a classical model.

We know in the experiment that the incident beam must consist of all angles of dipole polarisations. And so it follows that statistically this must be a 50/50 split. That is half must have their N pole facing up from any angle between horizontal to perpendicular to the beam path. And the other half must have the same range of angles between 0-90 degrees but all with their N pole facing down. And we know separately from experimental observations that a dipole will be repelled if its N pole faces towards the N pole of an external field. Or attracted if its S pole faces the external field’s N Pole. Implying that in a classical model, as it is also expected to do in QT, half of the dipoles will be initially deflected upwards in a range of angles by the external field. And half deflected downwards. Separately there is also a statistical preference for a greater number of dipoles with their N-S dipoles fields facing parallel to the direction of motion of the dipole in a beam.

In accordance with well accepted classical models of net force on dipoles in inhomogeneous fields each atom in the incident beam will experience a path deflection upon entering an inhomogeneous magnetic field depending on each incident atom’s dipole field angle relative to the external field. This path deflection is proportional to the net translational force imposed on the dipole by the inhomogeneous external field of the S -G apparatus. As illustrated in Fig 1, a dipole whose field angle is closest to perpendicular to the inhomogeneous field will receive the least net force. And a dipole oriented with its field parallel to the external field will receive the greatest net up or down force. It is at this moment of entry into the external magnetic field of the apparatus that this range of positive or negative deflections on the dipole paths are effected. And once inside the field, all dipole fields are now aligned N-S with the external field. From which point on a net translational force is then applied equally to all the now aligned dipoles as they pass through the 3.2 cm length of the inhomogeneous magnetic field part of the apparatus. A net up or down translational force which pulls the two “quantised” north south beams of dipoles farther and farther apart in curved paths. With each dipole receiving the same amount of net force up or down as all of the other dipoles. Illustrated in Fig 1 as the curved paths showing the effect of the constant up or down net translational forces on the moving dipoles. This net force eventually separates the beam into 2 North and south paths at the image plane. As is observed in the original S-G experiment. This initial up down range of path splitting of the deflected beams atoms based on incident dipole angles is essentially what is usually referred to as space quantisation in QT.

Separately, it is worth pointing out here that currently no published experiments showing the multiple beam paths predicted for other elements in a S-G apparatus and predicted by Quantum theory has ever been successfully completed. All available reference show that all single element S-G style tests always gave only the same double humped split paths in the image plane as the silver atoms did in the original experiment. Casting serious doubts over the validity of Quantum theory and its failed ‘space quantisation’ multi path predictions for atomic elements other than silver.

Quantisation into Positive or negative paths in a classical model

It is important here to explain in more detail how the beam splitting can be explained classically. In that the even spread of angles of dipole fields in the experiment, as predicted by a Classical model in 1922, can still be made consistent with the observed split paths at the image plane without invoking space quantisation. The answer lies in the fact that after the dipoles have upon entry aligned themselves with the external field, the net translational force up or down on a dipole will be constant for all dipoles travelling in the horizontal beam equally as they pass through the rest of the 3.2 cm of external N-S field. Which means that all angles of paths with up (down) directions will now be pulled up (down) additionally by the same amount of force away from their original horizontal path. Take for example a dipole whose path angle away from the horizontal after entering the field will have been deflected upwards by a very small path deviation of an angle of only 0.00000001 degrees. If one calculates what path deflection that would give after travelling 3.2 cm it would not be measurable. This is also close enough to be statistically considered as zero dipoles in the beam at this angle for the purposes of modelling the experiment. But after it travels through the 3.2 cm of the beam this aligned dipole will also have been subjected to a total additional amount of net up translational force from the external field. And that total would have deflected the dipole up by an additional angle to its path to become measurable. That amount in the Stern Gerlach experiment was observed to be between a 0.1mm to 0.2mm path shift from the original horizontal path. Effectively creating the atom free empty middle band in the image plane in a classical model.

Stage 2 and 3 deflection paths modelled classically

To make stages 2 and 3 also consistent with a classical model one can then assume that after stage 1 as outlined above, all the silver atoms polarities have field directions that match the inhomogeneous field of stage 1. When travelling through the stage 2 inhomogeneous field, which is also in the same magnetic field orientation as stage 1, no splitting of the beam will occur in stage 2. As the beam of silver atoms polarities are now lined up with both the stage 1 and 2 external fields. The beam will only be deflected up towards the stronger N pole of the external field due to net translational forces on each dipole in the beam. And proceed as a single deflected beam to stage 3. In stage 3 the dipole alignment process resets and starts over again to repeat the same splitting process as seen in stage 1. Because the beam entering stage 3 has all its atoms polarities in the beam now aligned at right angles to the applied inhomogeneous field in stage 3. And therefore, all dipoles will have to have their polarities rotated and deflected up or down so as to be re-aligned again to the stage 3 external field. Unfortunately, this purely classical effect seen in stages 2 and 3 is also often misinterpreted in QT as space quantisation.

Summary and conclusion

Upon entry into the inhomogeneous field of the apparatus the incident dipoles experience an initial deflection proportional to the angle between the specific dipole field angle and the direction of the inhomogeneous external field. This sorts the incoming beam into two sets of paths. One up and one down. Each path has a range of deflection angles from the original beam path. Deflections which are still much too small to be measurable at the image plane in Stern Gerlach. It is important to note that at this point all the atoms have also had their dipole field angles re-aligned with the North South external field by rotational force.

What is remarkable is that Quantum theorists then and now have been unable to understand the basics of net translational magnetic effects on dipoles. In that they don’t seem to realise that net force initially separates the dipoles into either up or down paths upon their entry into the external field with a range of net forces proportional to the incident dipole angles. At which point the now aligned dipoles in each set all experience the same total of net translational force from the external field as they continue on through the 3.2 cm path in the apparatus. And it is this net force which further separates the up or down sets to become observable as two separate beams at the other end of the apparatus field. 

Reference

1. The Stern-Gerlach Experiment Translation of: “Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld” 2023 Martin Bauer

Sunspot magnetic field modelled with a variable speed inner core solar dynamo

Current theory on solar magnetic fields posits that the overall solar and local sunspot magnetic fields are created by thermal convection heating in the convection zone. Which then creates the overall solar dipole magnetic field and also the observed Magnetic field loops at the photosphere which then drive the physical rotations of the plasma in sunspots.

The novel Variable speed core solar dynamo model described in this paper here proposes exactly the opposite. In that it is the differential rotation of the solar plasma in the convection zone due to the suns rotation, that is the mechanism that produces the dynamo that induces the observed solar magnetic field. A model where the suns dipole polarity reverses depending on whether the inner core rotates slower or faster than the plasma in the outer convection zone. A cycle of 11 year slower, then 11 year faster periods called the solar cycle. In each cycle this differential rotation also creates local eddy currents or vortices in the plasma. These vortices are observed at the photosphere as sunspots.

For sunspots, where the rotation axis of the plasma vortex of the sunspot is at right angles to the suns surface (pointing straight up from the suns surface), then the direction of the local induced dipole magnetic field of the sunspot predicted by the Variable speed core solar dynamo model will be parallel to the rotation axis of the plasma in the sunspot. The sunspot magnetic field in this model is thus predicted to be orthogonal to the suns surface. That is, it should point straight up from the suns surface. This is confirmed in Borrero et al 2014, where the authors found that there is also a further link between sunspot magnetic polarity and direction and the physical rotation of the plasma vortex that creates the sunspot. They observed that the polarity of the sunspot magnetic field is dictated by the direction of rotation of the sunspot vortex. Clockwise gives positive polarity, counter clockwise negative. This rotation direction/polarity relationship is also consistent with and predicted by the Variable speed core solar dynamo model. 

Borrero et al also confirm that the sunspot magnetic field is at it strongest and points directly outwards-upwards from the surface of the photosphere at the center of the the rotating sunspot, the umbra, and declines in strength and to more tangental directions relative to the suns surface the farther out from the center of the rotating sunspot one looks. Confirming the Variable speed core solar dynamo model’s predictions. Which propose that the differing velocity gradient across the rotating plasma of the sunspot produces a N-S magnetic field parallel to the axis of the rotating plasma that is also strongest at the center of the axis of rotation.

We also know from various studies including Yan et al, 2008 that not only do sunspots vortices rotate, they also have opposite sunspot rotations and magnetic polarities between the hemispheres. In that if in any solar cycle there are more positive magnetic polarities in the northern hemisphere then will always be more negative polarities in the Southern Hemisphere. And vice versa for subsequent cycles. This further confirms predictions made by the Variable speed core solar dynamo model which posits that differential  rotation of the plasma will induce, on average, opposite rotations of sunspots in opposite hemispheres. And in turn these rotational directions of the sunspot plasma will induce opposite polarities depending on whether the rotation is CW or CCW.

This relationship between rotational velocity of the sunspot plasma and its its induced magnetic field in the variable speed model is additionally confirmed in Li and Liu 2015 and Wang et al. 2016: “There is a direct relationship between rotations and the triggering of solar flares. Across all of the active regions examined, there are a number of commonalities observed in the rotational behaviour of sunspot groups. As expected, the higher-flaring regions show much higher average angular velocity values”.

Another study by Brown, Nightingale et al, found a connection between the increased activity of a coronal loop with a speeding up of the rotation of a sunspot. Further confirming that the physical rotational period of the dynamo of the rotating sunspot plasma dictates not only the direction of the induced field but its strength.

And in this following paper it is also found that sunspot rotations reverse rotational directions and polarities between solar cycles.  Consistent with the variable speed model where it is predicted that the slowing down or speeding up of the inner core relative to the convection zone between 11 year solar cycles will reverse the direction of the differential rotation every 11 years. In other words clockwise rotation of the plasma induces an opposite polarity to counter clockwise rotation. Further confirming that the physical rotation of the convection zone  plasma is the dynamo driver that induces the overall solar and local sunspot magnetic fields.

And in their 2016 paper Zheng et al also observed the following: “In the year of 2003, the α sunspot groups and the preceding sunspots tend to rotate counterclockwise and have positive magnetic polarity in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, the magnetic polarity and rotational tendency of the α sunspot groups and the preceding sunspots are opposite to the northern hemisphere. From 2014 January to 2015 February, the α sunspot groups and the preceding sunspots tend to rotate clockwise and have negative magnetic polarity in the northern hemisphere. The patterns of rotation and magnetic polarity of the southern hemisphere are also opposite to those of the northern hemisphere.” Zheng et al, 2016.

These observations are also consistent with the Variable speed core solar dynamo model. In that not only are the polarities of sunspots dictated by the direction of sunspot rotation, but that the average overall direction of rotation of sunspots for each hemisphere reverses between each succesive solar cycle. 

Summary

These various data cited above confirm predictions made by a Variable speed core solar dynamo model that the more solid solar inner core rotates faster and then slower than the outer part of the convection zone at the photosphere. Producing an equatorial east west reversal* in the rotation direction of the convection zone plasma every 11 years. And in turn inducing local eddy currents in the plasma and observe as sunspots at the photosphere

*A reversal in the direction of the rotation of the convection zone in an observer frame that rotates with the suns mass around its axis. (Imagine hovering above a sunspot on the sun as it rotates around the suns axis of rotation.) 

This is not the same frame as the heliocentric frame where the sun rotates around its axis in the observer frame and the inner core is then said to be rotating faster then slower than the outer convection zone plasma.

Fast radio bursts: bright FRB 20190203 detected at 111 MHz

Mystery remains for GRB theorists as to why no gamma ray transients can be found for non repeating FRB’s. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.13561

This lack of a gamma transient for this FRB is easily accounted for in my proposed theoretical model Here which describes the physical mechanisms responsible for the observed GRB  and FRB transients. An FRB in my model, is proposed to be simply a very fast, very short timescale GRB. 

FRB’s are just very short Gammaraybursts. Their observed activity in all frequencies are compressed proportionally on the timescale compared to their larger relative, the GRB. As an FRB has at most a second long transient in radio, it will have a proportionally much smaller transient time length in gamma. The observed total luminosity in each frequency would also in turn be proportionally less the shorter the observed transient length.

My model predicts here and on other pages of this blog that instead of the usually observed; seconds for gamma, minutes to hours for optical and days for radio transients normally seen in GRB’s, single FRB’s should have all their frequency transients durations on  much shorter timescales length. Notice that the entire observed radio transient for FRB20190203 was only in fractions of seconds. One only has to see that if a fast radio burst is only seconds long in radio frequencies, not for days as observed in the GRB radio transient, then it is clear that under my model, outlined in the link above, an FRB optical transient is predicted to be only on the order of a thousands of a second long. And in turn this model predicts that the FRB Gamma transient must  last for even shorter timescales in many order smaller than a thousandth of a second timescale. 

No wonder they can’t find optical or gamma transients for FRB’s. They are far too short to be recorded with our current technology

Quantum Magic: How Scientists Are Untangling the Universe’s Weirdest Mystery. Carl Kocher

I’m glad Carl admits QT is just magic. As he explains further at the end of his article with the following question, quoted below:

“Take another look at predictions #1 and #3 above. If we draw on our experience of life in a non-quantum world, we may notice something very strange when the polarizers are “crossed” at 90 degrees. If each photon has a 50% chance of transmission through its polarizer, why don’t we get coincidences 25% of the time? Instead, we observe none at all. At first consideration, this does seem to qualify as a paradox. One possible explanation could involve a missing component of quantum theory – perhaps a causal mechanism that could allow one photon, or one measurement, to communicate with the other. However, despite extensive research, no evidence has been found for such a mechanism.” Carl Kocher

https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-magic-how-scientists-are-untangling-the-universes-weirdest-mystery/

It may be a magical mystery for Carl Kocher. But the reason behind Carl’s mystery is that he believes in Einsteins fantasy photons and QT’s magical mystery tour. Because a traditional Young Huygens wave only classical model of light and an understanding of polarisation can fully explain the ‘no coincidences’ recorded when the polarisers at the two detectors are crossed in Carl’s experiment. Without having to resort to magic or mystery.

First of all one must understand how the source light is polarised. Carl confirms that the source beams of 551 and 423 nm from the excited calcium source are unpolarised. However he also admits that both beam paths will always have the same polarisation state when they arrive at the detectors at any one point in time. As long as both path lengths are equal. (“More generally, if one of the photons passes through a linear polarizer at any orientation, the remaining photon will then be in the same polarization state, pending future measurements.” Kocher)

And so when the two beams (423 &551nm) arrive at the two detectors, both detectors will receive light at any one point in time that will always be in the same polarised state. As long as both path lengths are identical. (This incidentally is the purpose of the coincidence counter. It records all counts over the time span of the experiment, but collates counts from both detectors to match them both to the same time of emission to check for coincidences. Which is also defined as the same path length)

And therefore, as Carl says in his article, if he crosses the polarising filters by placing a horizontally polarised filter in front of detector A, and a vertically polarised filter in front of detector B then only one of the two detectors can detect any incident wave light that left the source at same time. Unfortunately for Carl, real physics doesn’t use QT magic. And light is wave only. So instead of 2 imaginary magically entangled photons arriving at the detectors, it is just 2 same polarised points in the wave-only light beams (423 &551nm). With the proviso, as Kocher admits above, that both these beams when emitted will always be emitted with the same state of polarisation. And therefore they both arrive at the detectors with the same polarised state. Provided the two path lengths are identical.

For example if both detectors are receiving the same vertically polarised part of the lightbeams simultaneously, but only one detector can receive vertically polarised light due to the crossed filters, then obviously only one detector will detect any light at any one time.

Hence no coincidences will or can be recorded. Exactly as observed. 

Not only is this a physical mechanism that can explain the experimental results, no QT magic is needed either. Just a plain old classical theory of wave only light as described by Young and Huygens

For further examples of how QT magic can be explained by a wave only classical model read Here

Attosecond delays in X-ray molecular ionization

“Here we report measurements of the X-ray photoemission delay of core-level electrons, with unexpectedly large delays,..”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07771-9

As usual, Einsteins theory on photoelectrics is being proven once again to be pseudoscience. As the above quote from the linked papers abstract reveals. Problem is the theorists including those writing this paper just can’t bring themselves to admit that Einstein invented imaginary photons in 1905 purely as an excuse to validate the ludicrous claims in his soon to be published paper on special relativity. Knowing that the wave only theory of light accepted at the time was not consistent with his soon to be published fantasy of imaginary photons always travelling at c in all frames in his next paper on special relativity. 

The photon model is possibly one of the greatest obstacles to our understanding of the universe. Hubble, Planck and many other leading theorists at the time never accepted cosmological redshift was due to expansion. But because Einstein and his ludicrous quasi religious fantasies had by the 1920’s become to be worshipped and revered, nobody could accept that Hubble had just discovered that photons DID indeed lose energy over distance. A discovery that invalidated both of Einsteins 1905 Photoelectric and Special Relativity papers. And the continuing dogmatic adherence to anything Einstein published still prevents today’s theorists from understanding this basic fact: That light isn’t a photon. It is a wave only phenomena. And further to that...Electrons are also fantasies. Electric current can be much better modelled as variations in strength and orientations of adjacent atoms magnetic fields.

I have argued for many years on this blog that the photoelectric effect can be easily explained as a non relativistic classical wave only effect. Where light is a wave that gets “quantised” into packets of wave only electrical current by the detector atom. Using well documented and still scientifically accepted understanding of resonance in those resonating systems called atoms. No need for imaginary particles like photons or electrons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

Detailed study of a rare hyperluminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago

A new paper titled “Detailed study of a rare hyper luminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago” has come to my attention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02296-7

This paper is a good example of how the more pages of theory based on assumptions only, increasingly byzantine maths and a good load of devious data crunching the paper has, the more fantastical and pseudoscientific its conclusions will probably be. 

As usual the BBT theory consistently fails to explain why predictions of (the lack of) star and galaxy formation in the early universe don’t match the observations. A serious problem now for BBT theorists with the new JWST data. However the fantastical BBT can still be saved by pretending even more imaginary dark matter exists in the early universe than previously predicted. (As Narayanan et al postulated in 2015) These sort of very mature old galaxies have been recently observed in hi redshift surveys and cause a serious existential problem for the BBT. They shouldn’t exist! There’s not enough time for them to form after the beginining of time in the BBT fantasy universe. One get out for supporters of this failed theory has been that there were multiple fast occuring mergers of early galaxies. However the authors of this paper admit...no such evidence of any mergers is observed in this particular hi redshift mature galaxy studied in this paper. 

But the authors of this 2024 paper now cite Narayanan and pretend even larger than expected, or allowed, imaginary dark matter existed in the early universe and fortunately can be invoked to save the continually failing BBT. Thank heavens for brilliant mathematicians. They can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. And it is this pseudoscientific sleight of hand of that is used to save their cherished BBT. The rule seems to be: If the observation contradicts your preferred theory, then make up imaginary observations of imaginary new never before observed particles and your theory will be saved. For a few weeks at least until JWST comes up with new data that contradicts your theory once again.

When will supporters of the BBT theory admit that their favourite theory has never yet made a successful prediction. Starting with Gamows 1940’s prediction of a ridiculous 50k temp for the CMBR. (when a CMBR of 2.8K was measured in the 60’s, suddenly everyone forgot how wrong Gamow, LeMaitre or Apher and Herman’s predictions actually were) And JWST in particular has been a trying time for Big Bang fantasists. Every week some new JWST early universe data contradicts the Big Bang theory. Yet rather than admit the BBT is a quasi religious fantasy devised by a catholic priest desperate to reconcile his faith with a science that wouldn’t conform to his religion (LeMaitre) the theorists can always rely on Dark Matter. The phlogiston of the 21st C.

Physicists measured Earth’s rotation using quantum entanglement

Physicists measured Earth’s rotation using quantum entanglement! Since when has classical wave interference become “Quantum interference”?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-rotation-quantum-entanglement

The experimental setup as described in the original Silverstein et al 2024 experiment is fairly complex compared to the original Sagnac version. However complexity here does not mean it is no longer a basic time of flight Sagnac interferometer with observations consistent with a classical wave only model of light.

I’ve seen similar flights of fantasies of supposed ‘proof of QT’ from other very well known “Quantum” experiments. For instance the Kim et al 1999 Delayed Choice quantum eraser experiment. Where on analysis they had only confirmed the classical model of light. Where light is a wave only and not a photon. 

The technique is also used here. QT ‘researchers’ also have made the experiment as complex as possible so as to disguise the fact that the experiment can still be explained classically without referring to relativity or QT. I have comprehensively dissected Kim et al’s Delayed choice experiment setup and shown how adding complexity is also used to prove Quantum fantasies, at this following link http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

The same applies to this current 2024 experiment. They manage to pull off this Quantum trick by pretending that somehow ...classical polarised states of wave only light and wave interference are signs of the light being a particle and subject to quantum nuttiness!! 

The fact is that in this experiment there is still only just a path difference detected. And it is detected, as usual for any Sagnac interferometer, via interference patterns. Nothing more. They even admit this is all thats observed. The sleight of hand here is QT dogma at its greatest. They pretended that classical wave interference, observed and documented for centuries by Young and others... is somehow now called “Quantum Interference”

Laughable nonsense as usual from establishment physicists.

Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

 Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

It seems that supermassive very old mature galaxies, too old for the BBT to accommodate, have been confirmed to exist in the “very early” Big Bang universe in a new study just published in Astrophysical Journal letters. In this quote from an article on the paper in the online source Science daily, one researcher seems baffled:

“We have confirmed that these (galaxies) appear to be packed with ancient stars -- hundreds of millions of years old -- in a universe that is only 600-800 million years old. Remarkably, these objects hold the record for the earliest signatures of old starlight," said Bingjie Wang, a postdoctoral scholar at Penn State and lead author on the paper. "It was totally unexpected to find old stars in a very young universe. The standard models of cosmology and galaxy formation have been incredibly successful, yet, these luminous objects do not quite fit comfortably into those theories."

Incredibly successful? My understanding is that every time we look at the early universe it turns out to not match BBT predictions. Notice that the age of the imaginary Big Bang has changed over the years from 8 to 25 billion years. And finally only settled on its current age when the so called CMBR confined it to an exact 13 or so billion years old. 

Don’t forget that not only did Hubble himself never accept expansion as an explanation for the observed redshift/distance relationship called Hubble redshift, but that the BBT itself was invented by a devout Catholic priest LeMaitre! 

So once again the Big Bang theory has failed spectacularly. But the bigger question is...Why are they so confused? We Critics of the Big Bang have been saying for years that the universe is infinite in age and not expanding and that JWST would confirm that the BBT was a delusional fantasy. 

Inner core backtracking by seismic waveform change reversals. Wang et al 2024

With regards to a recent paper in Nature titled  ‘Inner core backtracking by seismic waveform change reversals’ Wang et al 2024

I would like to point out here that the authors have ignored or were unaware of a theoretical model of the dynamo that drives the earths magnetic field that Inpublished in 2008 here on this blog. I predicted in this 2008 paper that the earths more solid inner core rotates at different speeds from the outer mantle. And is now beginning to slow down its rotation speed relative to the mantle. I notice that this Nature paper, using the latest data and recently published, confirms my 2008 predictions. Without giving any credit to my earlier predictions which I must point out predates their papers conclusions by almost 2 decades.  

Please notice the last paragraph of the my 2008 paper and linked below. It predicts the inner core is beginning to slow down. http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2008/12/earths-magnetic-field.html

First observation of a focused plasma wave on the sun

The following link is from an article titled ‘First Observation of a focussed plasma wave on the sun’

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-focused-plasma-sun.html

I have to say the quality of this research seems to be very poor. Or at the very least a rather complicated and torturous mathematical description of what is simply two convex wavefronts travelling across a liquid surface. An ubiquitous example seen everyday in waterwaves.  

The paper claims in the following quote from the article on the paper linked above:

“the original arc-shaped wavefronts changed to an anti-arc shape, with the curvature flipped by 180 degrees, from curved outward to saddle-shaped outward”

Fortunately a time based series of images from the Solar Dynamics Observatory is also supplied to show the data in graphic form. Making it  easier for visual analysis. No need for algorithms and pseudoscientific mathematical models. And let me stress the point: There is no “anti arc” concave wavefront. The researchers, being visually illiterate mathematicians, were unable to understand the data in a simple visual graphic format. Despite the fact that this data in graphic form is presented as evidence in their paper.!! Hi-liting how maths has prevented theoretical physics from understanding the true nature of the universe.

Look at and study frame by frame, the animated sequence of solar images from the paper and also supplied in the linked article above at the phys.org website. (And originally published in Nature at this link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46846-z )

What is actually happening is that there are two main sources of circular expanding wavefronts on the solar surface coming from the initial coronal ejection (s) starting at a central point one above the other on the left hand side of the satelitte images.  These are essentially convex wavefronts in the “liquid/plasma” surface of the sun. (Analogous to two waves in water propagating outwards from two stones dropped into the water simultaneously and adjacent to each other.) As the two wavefronts propagate outwards and horizontally towards the right hand side of the images, they NEVER flip from convex to concave. What actually happens is the two main convex waves intersect and interfere with each other as they propagate rightwards in the images across the plane of the suns surface and create an ILLUSION of a single concave wave propagating to the right of the satelitte images. 

This is a simple effect seen in water waves in ripple tanks or for that matter, in any liquid. In the illustration below the two sets of concentric rings indicate the two wavefronts travelling out across the solar surface after the initial event. The time lapse is shown by colouring the sets of 2 expanding wavefront circles with different  colours as follows. 

Time (t) elapsed is denoted as: t1 green circles, t2 black, t3 red and t4 blue.

Quantum interference in atom-exchange reactions

As usual the quantum theorists just can’t bring themselves to admit QT is nonsense. The Bohr model was a failure and QT should never have been let loose in theoretical physics. All atoms and EMR are wave only. They are not made of particles like photons, electrons neutrons etc. Essentially the atom is a wave only superposition of EMR interfering at a single central nodal point. As the wave only classical theoretical model at these links explain:

Hydrogen Spectral Series as Harmonic Overtones of a Single Fundamental Wavelength

Photoelectric effect described by a classical model

Wave only atom

CERN ‘particle paths’ modelled as overlapping waves

This wave only atom model, by virtue of the atom being a nodal point in space and made up only of standing waves of EMR, will have a dipole N-S magnetic field associated with this nodal point. As described in the above link ‘Wave only atom’. And when this wave only atom moves relative to any other reference frame it will itself also produce wave only magnetic radiation. A circular model described in the above link ‘CERN Particle paths modelled as overlapping waves’.

In a wave only classical model, oscillating magnetic fields of EMR will interfere with each other to create the atom as a nodal point with an associated dipole magnetic field. Which then itself generates new EMR when it moves relative to any other atom in any other reference frame.

This classical model is continually confirmed by so called Quantum “research” . It seems that every time QT theorists look ever closer at the atomic scale with ever more sophisticated technology ...they always find that the atom ( and EMR) has only wave like properties. With those  properties well described by a wave only classical atomic model. As my quote below from an article on the latest Quantum research shows :

(Notice in the article on the paper, quote cited below, that the quantum researchers were surprised to find the atoms in their experiment were acting classically. As if the atoms resonant frequencies were being synchronised. They just ‘discovered’ a well documented classical effect which has been known for centuries. And called it a quantum effect!!)

 “If you zoom in on a chemical reaction to the quantum level, you'll notice that particles behave like waves that can ripple and collide. Scientists have long sought to understand quantum coherence, the ability of particles to maintain phase relationships and exist in multiple states simultaneously; this is akin to all parts of a wave being synchronized”

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-scientists-survival-quantum-coherence-chemical.html

This synchronisation phenomena does not need to resort to a quantum magic explanation. A simple wave only classical model using sympathetic resonance between two wave only resonant systems will suffice.

When will these QT theorists admit that the standard model and Quantum physics should be scrapped? And replaced with a wave only model of the universe where there is no Big Bang. No QT. No Relativity. And No standard model Particles.

When? Who knows. It’s amazing they haven’t realised this yet. It must because they studied too much maths. And not enough classical physics.

Three Photon Quantum interference and Harmonic of single energy scales

 Quantum computers have been “just around the corner” for 3 decades or more. And will never be realised. They are science fiction fantasy based on an imaginary magic pseudoscience called Quantum wave particle duality. Quantum “theorists” seem to publish almost daily their misunderstandings of the classical interference effects of wave only Electromagnetic radiation. Below is a link where once again quantum theorists have misunderstood classical resonance in atoms. Because in truth Atoms are just classical harmonic oscillators and will produce a specific range of harmonics and sub harmonics from just one source fundamental wavelength. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240423113051.htm

And from another paper on imaginary 3 photon interference I’ve quoted below some text from another paper on imaginary 3 photon quantum effects. Essentially the researchers have once again misunderstood classical wave only interference effects and harmonic oscillators. And pretended these basic classical effects are spooky quantum magic! https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.02189

“A high-quality single-photon source based on a semiconductor quantum dot [27] embedded in an open microcavity is used to deterministically produce single photons that are converted to the telecommunication band with a quantum frequency converter [28, 29]. These single photons are deterministically demultiplexed into six indistinguishable singlephoton sources [30, 31], which are manipulated in a fully programmable photonic chip [32]. Heraled by the detection of four output spatial modes with high-efficiency single-photon detectors”

This quote above is an experimental description quoted directly from the opening page of the above linked arxiv paper. And is essentially describing a classical interference effect. Nothing to do with imaginary quantum effects. 

There is no need to invoke quantum theory to describe classical wave theory of light. Here below is my classical translation of the above “Quantum” papers quoted text: 

“A (low level) light source produces wave emr that is then converted into different wavelengths of emr following centuries old knowledge of resonance and harmonic oscillators. Wavelengths which are then made to interfere with each other in what is called classical wave interference. And the resulting wavelength radiation is then detected at various detectors where wave radiation is absorbed by the detector atoms. Each atom acting sort of like a atom sized capacitor which absorbs discreet amounts of incident wave radiation and releases it in pulses to be amplified and sent to the detector hardware using the “electron” cascade effect. And misconstrued as some sort of magical spooky quantum action at a distance effect.“

The following link is a graphic description of how wave radiation and atom absorption can model imaginary ‘single double or triple photon’ quantum detection as a purely classical effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

And regarding the process cited in these papers as “quantum frequency convertors” and the supposed “surprising” harmonic order observed in SPE’s indicating a energy scale in the Science daily press release cited above.  Once again the classical nature of atoms as harmonic oscillators has been ignored in favour of quantum spookiness. 

To get the correct explanation using a classical wave only model of atoms and light that does not involve spooky quantum nonsense look to this following paper on Harmonic and sub harmonic wavelengths generated from a single fundamental wavelength in Hydrogen atoms: https://vixra.org/author/p_g_vejde

No need for any quantum magic. Any researchers or institutions wishing to try to harness classical wave interference correctly to try and exploit any possible advances in computing that classical interference could offer to computing had best stop wasting their time and budgets looking for mythical quantum dragons and spooky entangled angels. And hire me to explain how quantum theory has misled research into theoretical physics for more than a century ever since Neil’s Bohr published his misguided Electron shell model in the early 20th C. The fact is that all observed energy levels in all atoms can be modelled succesfully  using a wave only classical model. No imaginary electron shells or photons needed.

Fast Radio Burst mystery solved. They are short Gammaraybursts.

As usual the theorists haven’t the faintest idea about what mechanism produce Fast radio bursts and Gammaraybursts. In their ignorance they think imaginary massive explosions caused by imaginary black holes etc produce these flashes. Some fantasists have even imagined there is a time reversal structure, so desperate is their desire to try to explain why their “explosion” model always fails to model each successive new observation of either Gamma or Fast ray burst data. As these following links show:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-fast-radio-approach-characterize-behavior.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-astrophysics-advances-gamma-ray.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad335/pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927324000793?via%3Dihub

The actual mechanism of gamma and fast radio bursts is well described by a simple classical model where light is a wave only. GRB and FRB data is only consistent with a model where the universe is infinite and not expanding. And the speed of light is always and only c relative to its source. In other words ignore the all relativity based physics.

DO NOT make up a fantasy model that continually needs to be corrected as the actual data comes in as all established models currently do. Instead base your model on the data first and foremost. Not as an afterthought. If you do, as I do, it will always correctly predict any subsequent new observation. As the link below explains.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2019/12/grb-190114c.html

To start with all current data on Fast radio bursts is consistent with them being just very short Gammaraybursts where the burst time line itself is so short that all data above radio frequencies occurs too fast to be measured by our instrumentation above the background noise. So for instance if a FRB is observed to last only seconds, then it’s optical counterpart will be a flash in less then a thousandth of a second and the gammaray part of the burst will last in even smaller timeframes of millionth of a second or less. Too small a time to be measured currently by our latest technology.

Proof of this model is that if one looks at any FRB lightcurve it will always show an exponential decay in peak fluence from hi to low frequencies. Proportional to wavelength. The fluence of the FRB lightcurve lasts for longer times at longer wavelengths. This same decay rate is also observed in all GRB data for all observed wavelengths. Confirming that an FRB is just a very short GRB. 

So that for instance if in a GRB, the gamma lightcurve peaks at t_0 seconds and lasts 20 seconds, then the xray peak will be delayed slightly and last longer. And this trend will continue. Optical peaks later than xray and lasts for even longer. And, the trend continues through IR, far Infrared through to radio. Where shorter radio wavelength parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of the burst will not peak for hours or even days after gamma peaks. And the radio lightcurve also lasts for days and weeks longer than gamma. This model is confirmed by ALL grb and FRB data since they were first observed in the 1990’s.

The delay and stretch of each part of the EM spectrum of any burst will always follow this rule. That is that it will peak and decay later and longer proportional to wavelength.

This model of mine first developed in 1990 when GRBs were not known even to be isotropic. And, not only did I successfully predict  in 1990 that they would be isotropic. I also succesfully predicted that similar rebrightenings in all other wavelengths and lightcurves would be observed to be delayed proportional to wavelength. When no such data had yet even been observed. Nor even considered possible by the fantasies of the ridiculous fact free Neil Gehrels explosion model.

And to date, 35 years later, my models predictions have always been confirmed with each successive year. Whilst the explosion progenitor model’s predictions have failed each year since 1990.

Links to my own theories articles and videos cited above describe in more detail how this “Doppler” effect of light in a classical model can explain all GRB and FRB data. 

But in a nutshell let me here offer a simple analogy: Imagine a gedanken of a flat surface of a large body of water. Create a series of waves of a particular wavelength on this surface. Now imagine you are on a motorboat travelling with and at the same speed as those waves as they propagate across the surface of the water. You don’t measure any up and down of the waves because your are moving at the same speed as those waves. Now speed up and slowly overtake these wavefronts. What do you see or measure? Your boat now bounces up and down slowly as it overtakes/passes each wave crest. Speed your boat up again and those waves will appear to you to be at an even higher frequency. Thus the faster your boat moves, the higher the observed frequency of those waves you overtake will appear to be. Do this same gedanken with lightwaves in a non BBT universe and you will get a GRB.

This is just a Doppler effect. That is what GRB and FRB’s are. No explosions involved

Reversal of quantized Hall drift at non interacting and interacting topological boundaries.

 The following paper seems to misunderstand basic physics. And attributes what is essentially classical Newtonian physics to imaginary pseudoscientific quantum effects.

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-reveals-topological-reversal-quantum.html

This misunderstanding is based on the fact that QT theorists have assumed light is a particle *and* a wave. This is a false assumption. Light is wave only. And all imaginary magical “ quantum” effects are actually just theorists misunderstanding the wave based nature of light and pretending it’s also a particle. Any imaginary quantum effects can be just as well described by classical waves and classical polarisation. As the following links explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Take for instance the polarisation of EMR after reflection. Notice the handedness of the incident circular polarised wave changes handedness. But only in its direction of propagation!

Because from the observers point of view the incident wave has the same handedness as the reflected wave. 

This is because polarisation of light is dictated by the angle of the magnetic field of the incident light wave. And thus the handedness of the polarisation of the reflected light will be the same as the angle of the incident light waves. 

In case this doesn’t make sense to any student of physics indoctrinated into the nonsense of ridiculous quantum theory then look at how polarisation of a reflected wave depends on the polarisation of the incident wave.

If for an observer looking at the reflection plane at t_0 the incident circular polarised wave is polarised vertically relative to the observer at 12:00 o’clock. Then its reflected wave will also be polarised vertically. In other words the polarisation angle of the light beam moving towards and hitting the mirror will be vertical,relative to the observer.

Then it follows that at t_1 the incident circularly polarised wave has rotated slightly clockwise to 1:00 o’clock and that the reflected wave now moving towards the observer will also be polarised to the angle of 1:00 o’clock. BUT...relative to the observer.

This is referred to in physics as a flipping of handedness for polarisation at reflection. But what the reference fails to mention is that yes although the handedness flips at reflection. That is only true in the direction of propagation. Whereas from an observer point of view the handedness does not flip at reflection. 

This phenomena also can explain the observations in the experiment cited above. Because the handedness of the magnetic fields of the atoms upon reflection at the barrier is dependent on the angle of the atoms magnetic field before it reflects. And notice in the experiment the  handedness of the magnetic field of the atom after reflection is the same as before it is reflected. As with EMR at reflection.

No quantum effects needed. Just a simple following of the classical physics rule of magnetism on reflection. 

Which is: From an external observers point of view looking at the mirror, if a magnetic field is reflected its angle of polarisation must be preserved. And, for the external observer, be the same for the reflected atom or light wave as the angle of polarisation of the incident atom or lightwave.

Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.