Expansion theory is a heterodox alternative to mainstream physics invented by Mark McCutcheon and published in his book The Final Theory. The theory postulates new explanations of many results in physics through the expansion of all matter at an accelerating rate.
The concept was suggested in 1998 by Scott Adams in The Dilbert Future as an alternative to conventional explanations of gravity (unlike McCutcheon, Adams did not propose this theory as a superior physical paradigm; he used it as a philosophical example, to illustrate how commonly accepted interpretations of reality could be 'optical illusions'). On page 237 of The Dilbert Future, Adams says that the theory had been considered even earlier.
Like the Principia Mathematica, The Final Theory begins by outlining the basic principles that govern the universe, in the 'expansion theory' model; then applies these to astronomical observations. He then goes on to explain light, electro-magnetism, and quantum mechanics in the context of expansion theory using junior high school mathematics. He also poses several questions to the scientific community regarding apparent paradoxes in conventional physics.
Problems with science
According to The Final Theory physics is full of flaws that have been glossed over with the passage of time. For example, McCutcheon believes that masses attracting one another given their mass and separation violates the first law of thermodynamics (which he retains over most other conventional physical laws). That is, he argues that 'attractive' gravity contradicts the law of conservation of energy, as these bodies attract eternally with no apparent decrease in energy despite all the work being done.
The definition of energy used in The Final Theory excludes the gravitational potential energy that mainstream physics uses to keep total system energy constant in gravitationally colliding bodies. Whether or not conventional physics remains inconsistent if thermodynamic laws are adjusted to McCutcheon's energy definition is not investigated in The Final Theory.
The problems in mainstream physics identified in The Final Theory are different from the theoretical gaps that mainstream physics accepts in its own description of the universe. These limitations in the standard model are not addressed by McCutcheon, as he rejects the (mainstream) fundamental theories that produce them.
Expansion
As well as listing the flaws that McCutcheon sees in modern physics, his book offers a solution, a theory of everything based on universal continuous expansion, called Expansion theory. The final theory makes the case that most of the theories offered by modern mainstream physics should be replaced by 'expansion theory' based explanations. Conventional theories utterly rejected include quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Expansion theory states that all materials are expanding at all times at an accelerating rate. There is no deeper explanation of this, implying that this is an empirically determined law. That is, a set of axiomatic rules which appear to replicate observations, without being derived from or motivated by deeper explanations. (Newton's 'attractive force' gravity rules are of this type, but Einstein's General Relativity is not, being derived from more fundamental assumptions.) The empirical evidence is the observation that near the earth's surface, objects fall at an accelerating rate (the observation that Newton interpreted as the mutually attractive force of gravity).
Gravity
The final theory reads as though expansion theory was primarily motivated as an explanation for falling (usually explained by gravity), and therefore this is the branch of physics that gets the most rigorous treatment.
The book rejects both Newtons and Einsteins view regarding gravity and installs expansion theory in their stead. Expansion theory states that all materials, regardless of density, expand at a given rate that is constant throughout the universe, and that this explains how objects 'drop' near the earth's surface.
While Newton supported his theory by mathematically proving that it would give rise to elliptical orbits, and Einstein proved that the perihelion shift in Mercury's orbit is accounted for by general relativity, Mark McCutcheon can (as yet) explain no corresponding (previously unexplained) results with his theory.
Orbits within expansion theory may seem impossible, given the fact that it denies the existance of a gravitational force creating 'action at a distance'. If attraction were due to mutual expansion then objects should not circle one another, but Mark McCutcheon accounts for the discrepancy by introducing the following:
The "New First Law of Motion"
-
- Objects neither travel in isolated straight-line trajectories nor sit still in space, but rather, objects always either move towards each other or travel in curving or orbiting trajectories about one another due to their mutual expansion.
No solid mathematical description of these curving trajectories currently exist within expansion theory.
Atomic Forces
The expansion theory description of atomic forces is similar to its description of gravity. However, the nuclei must expand faster then macroscopic matter in expansion theory to produce an apparent electrostatic force much stronger than the apparent gravitational force. The difficulty in explaining how macroscopic objects can be expanding slower than the atoms they are composed of is explained in The Final Theory by proposing different spacial dimensions in the atomic and macroscopic realms. This resembles string theory, something denounced at the outset of the book.
Note that this description requires that protons and electrons have no apparent electrical charge, a concept harking back to classical mechanics, but not supported by experimental data. Electro-static forces between macroscopic objects is explained via colliding surplus electrons expanding into space. Electro-static attraction is expalined in the same way though if one body has more surplus electrons then the other the bodies would apparently attract. This apparently violates newtons laws of motion which is acceptable since expansion theory claims to have dispelled such lies.
A great number of quantum mechanical concepts such as non-commutable observables, operator eigen-functions, and state superposition are not addressed by expansion theory in any fashion at this time.
Probabilistic description
Expansion theory states that electrons continually bounce off the nucleus, travel some distance out until the nucleus expands to catch up with them and then the process is repeated. Mark McCutcheon argues that the electron's position can be described probabilistically, most likely being found at the top of it's arc. While this explains spherical atomic orbitals the unusual geometries of higher level orbitals are not dealt with in expansion theory at this time.
This present model does not attempt to account for fermionic or bosonic statistics.
Light in the expansion theory
The phenomenon of light is explained with (expanding) clusters of electrons. The size of each cluster denotes the colour of the light (interpreted in mainstream physics as an electromagnetic wave frequency). An argument advanced against the mainstream theory of electromagnetism is the claim that a light bulb violates the first law of thermodynamics. The The Final Theory's model of light does not account for the constructive fringes in the double slit experiment at this stage.
While no account of the mass of these new electron's was given within expansion theory it is a fair assumption, given the description of atomic dynamics, that said mass is probably non-zero. If this were the case then the mass of the universe would be many orders of magnitude more then it currently is measured to be, dark energy or not. This however wouldn't shed any further light on the question of the eventual fate of the universe given that the big bang model and the Robertson-Walker metric are both based on the Einstein field equations, objects refuted by expansion theory.
Paradoxes within Science
Barn and Pole
The Barn and pole paradox is the counter-intuitive implication in special relativity that events simultaneous in one frame of reference do not occur simulateously to a moving observer. The 'paradox' is not a challenge to mainstream physics (being part of its explanation for data) but is considered by Mark McCutcheon as an example of the shortcomings of conventional relativity theory. Since expansion theory does not include special relativity, the paradox is not a feature of expansion theory, and (missing this surprising result) is more in tune with 'common sense'.
Eternal power source
Since McCutcheon does not define energy to include GPE he believes that a falling body produces energy 'from nothing', and violates the first law of thermodynamics. Since falling can be used to produce energy 'from nothing' he argues that the mainstream's gravity model would allow the construction of an unlimited energy supply. There is no such perpetual energy machine, and The Final Theory contends that this highlights a contradiction in the standard physical model (between gravity and thermodynamics). The book does deal with the problem of separating two bodies once they have collided within the perpetual energy machine.
Warped Space Time
McCutcheon dismisses General Relativity as strange, simply on the basis that it refers to warped four dimensional space-time. Most mainstream physicists would concur, but argue that the theory nevertheless fits the data beautifully.
Acceptance within scientific community
As yet no university has started teaching expansion theory at any level. Some of the reasons for this are:
- The theory is still far from being a complete description of many experimental results. In its current form it is contradicted by more evidence than the competing (mainstream) physical theories it hopes to replace.
- The theory is intended to create a paradigm shift in our understanding of the physical world. The scientific community, like any community, is not receptive to attacks on its fundamental beliefs.
- McCutcheon's book does not appear to explain anomolous data, as Einstein did, nor does it make falsifiable predictions.
The standard charge applied to the scientific heretic is that his theory 'is not science' because it fails to explain how it can be falisfied. Given the large number of apparent contradictions to the expansion theory's model that are observed in nature it appears that no new data are required to contradict it. Therefore belief in it is presently a matter of conviction in the face of the evidence. However, this is the case with all original scientific ideas. It remains to be seen whether theoretical revisions can better fit the facts, or whether belief in it can persist despite the shortcoming of not matching the data.
A common observation that would appear to contradict the theory is that the space between objects (for instance sun and earth) is not constantly shrinking. If all objects are expanding in a fixed amount of space then we would soon collide with the sun, but we do not. McCutsheon argues that space itself is expanding with the matter it contains but macroscopic dimensions are either: (a) expanding exactly as fast as the matter within them, or (b) expanding more slowly. If (a) is true, it is equivalent to a shift of co-ordinate system, yielding no measurable effect, and in case (b) all gaps should shrink, when in fact, they do not.
Ad hominum criticisms
Some critics of the theory have attacked it by an implicit ad hominum challenge to the credibility of the author, Mark McCutcheon. He his accused of being a pseudo-scientist because:
- The simplicity of his mathematical arguments, and the fact that he eschews scientific theories & terminology are not features of 'respectable' mainstream scientific publications. His book outwardly resembles pseudo science more than it does a peer-viewed paper.
- By making ad hominum attacks of his own on such reverred scientists as Newton (who he accuses of 'hiding' the expansion theory within his own Laws of Gravity) he invites personal attack in reply.
- His accreditations and achievements within mainstream science are less than typically required for such revolutionary claims to be treated seriously. (Compare Steven Wolfram's resumé, which allowed a serious consideration of his own would-be scientific revolution: A New Kind of Science.)
- Basing a TOE on the throwaway suggestion of a famed cartoonist ensures an initial bias against its acceptance.
The theory's wider impact
In contrast to the mainstream scientific community, the popular response to The final theory (as measured by Internet bookseller feedback) has been overwhelming favourable.
See also
External links
References
- Mark McCutcheon, The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific Legacy, Published 2002, Universal Publishers ISBN 1-58112-601-8
Last updated: 05-27-2005 04:20:29
Last updated: 10-29-2005 02:13:46
