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.