Herein is the essential contradiction:

1) Regardless of whether time and energy are related, such that a dimension of time can be defined by some manipulation of energy at any level, the first law of thermodynamics cannot hold as there must be infinite energy available in order to establish a ‘carbon copy’ of the universe as we move backwards in time. This is because the energy of the universe must be able to be recreated in its entirety at any given point in time and from any number of given observers.

2) In order to get to those moments in time, an observer would have to be taken outside the normal flow of the universe and then “reinserted”. Ergo the total sum of energy available would be that of all known universes plus the energy required to move backwards in time.

Both aspects contradict the first law of thermodynamics which

expresses the existence of a quantity called the internal energy of a system, and shows how it is related to the distinction between energy transfer as work and energy transfer as heat. The internal energy obeys the principle of conservation of energy but work and heat are not defined as separately conserved quantities. Equivalently, the first law of thermodynamics states that perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics]

In short – the energy available in the universe is a constant.

Now certainly how liberally you want to define “the universe” has a great deal of influence over how possible time travel into the past is going to be. After all we could define the energy constant of the universe to be the sum total of all possible universes at any given point in time. That argument however is self-defeating because for any given number of universes, if time travel into the past were possible then there will be always at least n+1 universes which would inherently mean the first law of thermodynamics is wrong.

Inflationary Universe

Let’s use Ocam’s Razor as our guide in this for a moment and assume that the first law of thermodynamics actually holds. Conventional theory suggests that our universe is an inflationary one where galaxies are flying apart except in our local cluster. The principle of dark matter has been proposed to account for the missing mass of the universe required to make galaxies and local clusters ‘stick’ together.

Beyond this there are a host of other problems including the uniformity of the universe when looking at the background radiation of the universe presumed to be the leftovers of the Big Bang, the nature of what is at the center of a black holes, and why quasars are so far away in comparison to our own galaxy.

What I find interesting about the existing theory is that it assumes the first law of thermodynamics has only two possible outcomes – 1) the big crunch – where everything eventually collapses in on itself until we get another big bang, or 2) heat death – where everything eventually flies apart so far that thermodynamics is impossible to sustain. It also assumes that the universe had to have a starting point – a principle that is dependent on time being a dimension of the universe.

Convection Universe Hypothesis

One of the problems with an expanding universe theory is that recent physical evidence points dark energy welling up from the vacuum of space without any substantive cause. This energy potentially leads to the formation of particles of opposite charge (matter / anti-matter) which, in the absence of any real gravimetric forces, would possibly represent the dark matter assumed to be present.

What has surprised me in doing some preliminary research is that the principle of convection has not been mentioned anywhere as a possible mechanism for an expanding universe which preserves the first law of thermodynamics but yet accounts for how the universe may seem to be expanding. 

Let me see if I can simply paint this picture which doesn’t start with a Bang but a wimper. In no way am I trying to explain the origins of the universe itself. However let’s first start by assuming that the big bang inflationary theory is wrong – that there was no big bang. Convection currents by their very nature imply a cyclical process of creation and renewal. We will pick as the starting point the concept of a black hole as being both the beginning and the end of the cycle.

Black Holes

As theory into new and exotic particles continues to grow, one of the more interesting aspects of particle physics is this idea of quark-gluon plasma. Quark-gluon plasma exists only at very high temperatures and densities such as what will exist in the center of a black hole. At sufficient densities it may be possible that unconfined quarks can travel beyond the gravitational pull of a black hole and ‘appear’ elsewhere in the universe such as in the vacuum spaces in-between galaxies. 

This would be different from Hawking radiation, which proposes that a black hole can ‘evaporate’ at the event horizon, in that such convection acceleration would occur within event horizon after the particle has fallen past the boundary. The inference being that black holes should ‘dissipate’ faster than called for simply by the application of Hawking radiation.

Convection Inflation

Once past the boundary of the black hole – such unconfined quark-gluon plasma becomes confined in the cooler vacuum regions of the universe where they begin to form dark matter. Such matter accretes in the void spaces between galactic clusters which serve to push the universe outward creating new islands of matter from which new galaxies can take root.

Space itself would then be subject to both expansions and contractions as new galaxies start to take shape. Such an effect would appear to be forcing local galaxy clusters together while those galaxies on outside of this boundary would be constantly pushed away (thereby explaining why it is only our local cluster of galaxies that appear to be contracting whereas everything else is rushing away from us).

Quasars

Stellar formations such as quasars which represent the amalgamation of multiple galaxies into a single galactic formation would necessarily take billions of years to form under such a model. As new dark matter would constantly be pushing such formations further and further away, these super massive objects would necessarily not be near or close by our own local area if the scattering effect was constantly searching for the ‘weakest’ point in the universe to re-express itself as dark matter.  Hence the propensity for such matter to fill the interspatial regions outside the gravitational influence of a quasar would be substantially higher than it would within the gravitational vicinity.

Microwave Background Radiation

By a similar token, the background radiation of the universe may be able to be similarly explained not as a remnant of the Big Bang but rather as the echo of dark matter being formed in the spaces between stars and galaxies. Such uniformity would be consistent with an ongoing process of matter – antimatter collisions which are proposed as part of the mechanism for dark matter formation.  While there does not seem to be any direct linkage between the hot and cooler measurements of the cosmic radiation background and the actual consistency of what is physically present in those areas, I would think it would not be surprising if there was a co-relationship between the presence of dark matter generation and those areas which are fairly ‘hot’.

Accelerating Universe

Another aspect of the coalescing of dark matter into galaxies and new star formations is that the warping of space during these formations would tend to artificially show a universe that is expanding at an accelerating rate rather than at a constant speed. Consider that when dark matter forms in a region of fairly uniform, flat space, there is very little bending of space. As matter begins to coalesce, the gravity well produced would seem to the outside observer as if the galaxy was accelerating away from the observer at an ever increasing rate when in fact the relative point to point distance, not accounting for gravitational effects, would be the same as it was previously.  Such effects should be more pronounced the larger the size of the galaxy.

Convection Cycle

The convection cycle could repeat infinitely without the need for the universe to expand infinitely or contract into a big crunch. One of the major benefits is that a convection model doesn’t require exotic particles nor does it break the first law of thermodynamics. Most of the observable aspects of the universe are apparent through a simply rotation of energy in and out of convection currents and are in many respects the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions.

At the moment I haven’t found anything which suggests that such a convection hypothesis of the universe is not workable. That isn’t to say there may not be substantive holes in the theory, just that at the moment, any such holes are not big enough to discount the theory either. It is also important to note that while the specifics of this theory may use some aspects that need to be modified later (for example the assumption that a dense quark-gluon plasma is the final end-state of a black hole before it evaporates internally) it is the general principles here which are fundamental to its understanding and explanation of observable and testable hypotheses.

Time

Originally I started out with this concept of time as being problematic specifically as it applies to the first law of thermodynamics. If there is going to be a major obstacle to a convection model of the universe – it is likely going to involve principles related to time (such as the relationship of particle positions relative to each other and any constraints imposed by the speed of light). We’ve already seen that particles can be influence in quantum theory at distances that are not possible based on a universe where the speed of light is an upper constraint. This would tend to suggest that either our model of the quantum layer of the universe is incomplete or our concept of time is incorrect.

While time is relative producing various testable hypotheses when use for forward time travel, the fact that our observable universe breaks down when travelling backwards would suggest that it is our concept of time which is incorrect. In order to conserve energy objects must be able to move faster than the speed of light without using all of the available energy inherent in the universe as part of that acceleration.  This may be testable indirectly even if all the sub-atomic processes are still being worked out which is what caught my interest and attraction in the idea.

Certainly lots of gaps but at the same time it provides a ton of opportunities for reading and research in new directions which may prove more beneficial to immediate space-based goals and objectives than just whether the big-bang existed or not. More on that later thou.

– Kevin Feenan

Primary among these influencers is the concept of tidal forces between a star and its planets – known as tidal locking. Tidal locking occurs when the rotation of a planetary body matches its orbital period similar to how the moon always shows the same face to the earth even though the moon is rotating as it revolves around the earth. This effect means that extrasolar planets which are tidally locked with their stars, even though they may exist in the “habitable” zone would not be suitable for life as the persistent heating of one face of the planet would eventually boil off any potential atmosphere – thereby rendering the planet inert to the development of life (See link).

By the same token – planets that revolve too fast may also be unable to support life – or at the very least such rotation vs planetary shape may play a role in the ability of life to develop. While not directly argued by Donald Hamilton, the shape of a planetary body that is spinning rapidly would force more material (including water and atmosphere) towards the equator there by rendering any possibility of uniform atmosphere creation almost impossible until such time as the planet could take on a more spheroid shape.

Such atmosphere would only be protected in as much as there would be a viable magnetic field available to ensure that plasma from the solar wind does not come in contact with the planet’s troposphere or stratosphere and thereby strip ions necessary for atmospheric collection to occur (See link, link).

The more pressing challenge however is that in all of these endeavours to try to find additional habitable planets, almost all techniques focus on two aspects that almost ensure defeat even before analysis has started. The first is the requirement to identify planets based on indirect observation requiring either solar transits or wobbles. Rare is the ability to see a planet directly such as is the case with the gas giant orbiting the star β Pictoris.

New Methodology Proposal

One of the more interesting notions however that I would like to put forward is that an adaptation of a technology which is used to identify magnetic fields in deep space could be used to examine candidate solar analogs which can be seen perpendicular to our point of observation similar to β Pictoris.

Scientist for UCLA have refined a technique for examining super massive black-holes for signs of primordial magnetic fields between galaxies. The technique involves examining images for blurriness caused by deflection of electrons and positrons that would otherwise render a more crisp image.

What I am proposing is to use a similar technique in order to examine the background radiation emanating from behind a candidate solar analog. Similar to gravitational lensing, using a known fixed point in space should render parts of the resulting image “blurred” when taken at different points in time. Since the original study claims to be able to detect “femto-Gauss” strength at just one-quadrillionth of the Earth’s magnetic field, it should be possible to use this technique to examine nearby solar analogs for confirmation of planetary systems.  

Specifically – Solar systems including 61 Vir, HD 1461, 23 Librae, and β Pictoris would be primary candidates for confirmation of the process as each of these systems are close enough to make for a reasonable test of the hypothesis and have known planets which have been verified by the international community.

While the technique would not necessarily screen for planets that do not have a magnetic field (subject to the nature of artificially created magnetic fields that may result from some chemical interaction in the same vicinity) the point of fact remains that when looking for habitable planets, at the moment the ones we are most interested in will have to have a magnetic field of some reasonable strength if they are to be able to sustain life based on our present definitions.

While this doesn’t solve the problem of how to get there – it certainly creates opportunities whereby we can more closely determine those solar systems of interest wherein we may, within our lifetimes, choose to send a robotic probe for investigation notwithstanding a 100-150 year mission term.

– Kevin Feenan

Here is where I have a problem with the science: the corona of a star based on observations of our own sun have been shown to be several millions of degrees higher than the surface temperature (~6000K/10000F). Ignoring the effects of coronal mass ejections for a moment – such radiation on the outside of the planet and a core temperature of 1000F+ from the surface should provide sufficient energy for atmospheric molecules to vaporize off into space , be picked up by the solar winds, and blown off. In short - the planet shouldn’t have an atmosphere that close to the sun’s corona.

What then are we looking at? Most likely the culprit is superheated gas trapped in the magnetosphere of the planet providing the illusion of an atmosphere where none should exist. However even there we have a bit of a problem.

See – for the planet to have a rotation period equal to it orbital period – this would suggest that any internal metallic core had long since stopped spinning. This is in part what accounts for planetary magnetic fields. So if we can infer from the rotation of the planet that its magnetic field is weak then there shouldn’t be a residual atmosphere due to interaction with solar wind.

The other other two mechanisms I can think of that may be responsible for the presence of an atmosphere would be venting of carbon dioxide and methane from within the planet’s core as the planet cooks like being in a microwave oven. The issue with this theory is that for a planet to get this close to its star it is likely that any such residual gas may have leached from the planet surface millions of years ago.

The second mechanism is a combination of gravity and thermal currents that may cause molecules to bind more tightly to the surface of the planet. If so then it may be possible to get a much more accurate read on the size / mass of the planet simply by figuring out at what point the pull of gravity counteracts the vacuum of space considering the amount of heating that needs to occur to heat the planet’s surface temperature to 4000F.

Of course there is another possibility – the one which I found myself drawn to immediately upon reading the article. The science could just be out and out wrong. Personally I hope this isn’t the case as I would like to think that we can identify earth sized planets in other star systems that our children can one day visit. I’m just more than a little disappointed however that those people who purport to be on the cutting edge of this science who just out and out assume that what they are looking at represents an atmosphere without critiquing the possibility that what they are doing is inherently at the cutting edge.

It wouldn’t be the first time that humanity’s exploration of science has shot off on a tangent. Let’s hope that other communications about Kepler will be a bit more considered.

Approximately every 3 months (give or take) I will publish a codeword and an email address. That code word will have been selected 3 months prior and retained in a filing system not connected to the Internet. Anyone that has knowledge of the future can email the address and/or provide a comment on the blog here.

The comment should provide information which clearly shows foreknowledge of a soon to come event which is not easily guested at. The event predicted should be something that can be verified within 3 months of the prediction. So examples of such information would be along the lines of

• Significant world event(s) (political, geographical, cosmic events, births, deaths, etc.)
• Significant weather event(s) (rainfall, temperature, snowfall, etc..)
• Stock values at a given date and time
• Sport scores at a given date and time
• Winning lottery numbers (personally this would be helpful ;-)

So for example, the code word and email might be something like

Code Word: crispers enginery 
eMail: copycats165@timeodyssey.com
Validity Dates: Oct 1 to Dec 31, 2008

The email address will only be valid for the period of time indicated and will be taken down prior to being published on the web site here. As of the date and time of this posting the first email address has been created and is ready to accept emails. 

For those that are interested in the odds of someone selecting the code word and email address correctly through random chance, they are approximately 24,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. So the odds are definitely stacked in the favour of only someone who is either lucky in the extreme or someone that can send a message back in time to show that time travel is in fact possible.

Regardless – I didn’t know that ESA had a series of high powered radar stations up near the Arctic Circle. Which of course sort of begs a question since the old mind then is going a mile a minute. If we really wanted to communicate with other civilizations out there, assuming they exist, then why would we be beaming communications out along the galaxy’s central plane? Would it not make more sense to beam any transmissions out parallel to our solar system’s axis?

Here is my reasoning. Almost all the really key discoveries in terms of astrophysics that have been made in the last 50 years or so have come about because some galaxy, sun, or solar system was facing almost perpendicular to the way we were looking at the time. To me that would suggest that any type of communication signal would be more readily picked up by civilizations that are perpendicular to ours since any advanced civilization which was looking for signs of life would be naturally predisposed to be looking at those xray, gamma, and other sources which are aligned towards their home planet.

The other thing I was thinking of is this whole concept of using radio and other types of artificially generated electromagnetic radiation as a basis of communication. This assumes that someone is out there actually listening which requires specialized equipment that may only be relevant to a specific period of time in a civilization’s development. To some degree this doesn’t make sense.

Why not think at a much more basic level. How did early Native American’s communicate? Smoke Signals. The idea of getting a fire going with poor combustion so that it creates a lot of smoke in a stream and then interrupting that stream with a blanket creating gaps or messages through the size and timing of the smoke puffs.

The idea here is simply this – put some type of a deflector in front of the sun in order to block out the sun’s radiation in a pattern representing a series of primes or fibonaccinumbers which are not naturally occurring. (the first 100 numbers of pi might also work). The effect would be both instant and long ranging allowing us to more effectively cover larger areas of space.  If you put a solar deflector of sufficient size out at a given distance from the sun so that it either partially or completely blocked out the radiation from the sun – that blockage would extend out more or less forever for whatever number of arc-seconds of the sky the array was designed to address.

The effect is similar to that of opening an umbrella. The sun is very big, but an umbrella will block out the sun’s rays even through it is very small. The farther away from the sun you are, the smaller the size of the deflector array you need in order to generate the effect. The trade off however is that the number of arc-seconds you can cover in this way is very small. However, if done in a strategically placed location, such blockages should be more effective than sending radio signals.

The reason is that it is far more likely that someone out there will be looking at us with a telescope than a radio astronomy dish as there are far more interesting things out there to tune into that a Doritos commercial – regardless of how long they stay fresh. – K