If we stick to the observations, the observable Universe would
have a border some fifteen billion light years away where the
red shift of the
receding matter presumably approaches totality, and
where the energy of the
particles must therefore approach zero. Now if,
as seen by us, the energy of the
particles approaches zero, so must their
mass and, therefore, their momentum.
But if, as seen by us, their momentum
approaches zero, so must our uncertainty
in that momentum. Then, by Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle, our uncertainty in
the position of those particles
must approach totality. That is, they may be found
anywhere in the observable
Universe. The question then arises: In what form will
they be found?
And what is the evidence that they are thus recycling?
Now since the mass of these electrical particles is related to their size, it
follows that as their mass goes down, their size must go up. And, since that
allows the atoms and molecules to disintegrate, we may expect the matter to
recycle from the border as electrons and protons, that is, as hydrogen atoms. But
I'm not sure that some of it might not recycle as helium since the helium nucleus
is rather tightly bound.
Since these considerations argue for a steady state cosmological model
rather than for a big bang model, I should perhaps point out how this model
accounts for the cosmic background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson
in 1965, and I should also mention the driving mechanism for the expansion.
(The driving mechanism for the big bang expansion does not follow from that
model, but was "thrown in by hand.") Also, I should point out the observational
evidence that hydrogen is really recycling from the border. Then, too, I should
point out what this model predicts.
Penzias and Wilson's background radiation follows naturally from the fact
that star light going through a field of low mass particles near the border would
be so often picked up and reradiated that it would come in thermalized to 3K, and
the amount predicted by this model appears to be closer to the measured
amount than is the amount predicted by the big bang.
Also, as I see it, the energy of the radiation
that is lost to red shifting
(because of the expansion itself) drives
are two observational evidences that hydrogen is recycling from the
First, two measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope indicate that
are some nine or twelve clouds of hydrogen between the quasar 3C273
ourselves. And the question is: Where did they come from? According to the
bang model there is no way to put new hydrogen in there, and no way to
clouds of hydrogen hanging around in there for some fifteen billion years
condensing into something we could see. Also, the measurements by the
Space Telescope indicate that there is more than enough hydrogen in the
intergalactic voids to make all the known galaxies. Where did that come
This model predicts that
the Universe must be set up in such a way that
frustration is inevitable.
Otherwise it couldn't go on like this. In this model even
of the Universe at large doesn't go up because the material from the
recycles as hydrogen dispersed in space with all its negative entropy built
If any one could show that any of these cosmological processes, such as
collapse or cosmological expansion, could succeed, all steady state
would be dead.
great deal of effort has gone into reinterpreting our physics to support
big bang model. And it may be that the model is right and the physics was
but it seems a bit more likely that the physics was right and the model is
John Dobson July 9, 2002
4135 Judah Street, San Francisco CA 94122