Ockham’s Razor
states “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” meaning that when you
are presented with competing hypothesis making the same predictions, one should
select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
ORIGINS OF
THE BIG BANG THEORY
In 1929
Edwin Hubble published a
paper documenting the red-shift observations of galaxies
at various distances, and the velocities of motion thereby implied.
These calculations were seen as a
confirmation of a theory proposed in 1927 by Georges Lamaitre that the universe
was expanding outward; a theory that later came to be known as the ‘Big Bang
Theory’ (BBT).
For hundreds
of years following the Renaissance Period, science and religion had been in a
philosophical contest covering topics such as: the origins of humanity,
evolution, the Earth as a sphere, geo-centricity, and much more. Year after year, new scientific observations
and theories clawed away at religious fables.
Even today, much of the scientific community feels engaged in a battle
with religion for the public acceptance of scientific theory over religious stories. Many scientists feel it is their mission to
lead people out of the ignorant darkness of religion and myth and into the
enlightened truth of science.
For hundreds
of years, the scientific community (‘science’) felt at a disadvantage because
religion had a story for the origin of the universe while science had none. The need to counter religious origin stories
contributed to the broad acceptance of BBT, and abandoning BBT would leave science
with no origin story to fall back on.
Describing
the universe as infinitely present wasn’t enough. Humanity has difficulty resting on infinite
concepts. Almost everything in human
experience has a beginning and an end.
We are constantly evaluating everything from the confines of
bookends. Discussions of the universe
that do not include an origin story are instinctively unsatisfying, and are
easily passed over by other ‘book-ended’ explanations regardless of their improbability.
PROBLEMS
One of BBT’s
problems was immediately apparent: the dispersion of matter in the observable
universe does not resemble the aftermath of an explosion in any way. Explosions typically result in an area devoid
of matter near or around the center, and a bell curve distribution of matter at
a distance from the center in all directions (depending on gravitational
circumstances). However, matter in the
observed universe is evenly distributed.
This
discrepancy spawned a corollary theory called Inflation, which postulates that,
because all matter in the universe was compressed, all space was compressed
with it. When matter exploded outward,
space opened up at an equal pace, causing an even distribution of matter.
More recent
observations of red shift by the Hubble Space Telescope find the red shift is
higher than anticipated for distant galaxies, leading scientists to conclude
that galaxies are not slowing down as expected, but are accelerating away. Red shift observations of galactic rotation
also imply rotational speeds that exceed expectations based on gravitational
models.
These two
observations (and the velocities attributed to them) have spawned two more placeholder
theories necessary to maintain BBT: ‘Dark Energy’ and ‘Dark Matter.’ Dark Energy Theory postulates that there is
approximately five times more energy present in the universe - of unknown
origin and type - causing the accelerating expansion of the universe. Dark Matter Theory postulates that the
universe contains approximately five times more matter than we can observe; the
amount necessary to cause the galactic rotation approximated using red shift
data to work with our current gravitational models.
Finally, if
the red shift observations of galaxies increase proportionally (and
increasingly) with their perceived distance from Earth, then the Earth is necessarily
at or near the center of the universe. Galileo
and Copernicus must be turning in their graves!
The improbability of our planet or galaxy residing at the effective
center of the universe, and therefore its center of origin, is so improbable
that religious fables become comparatively reasonable. This point is rarely mentioned in
contemporary discussions of BBT, and is certainly the strongest argument
against it.
Some of BBT’s
defenders (including Stephen Hawking) have argued that the universe does not
require a center for expansion, stating that it is expanding in all
directions. The popular comparison is to
visualize the universe on a two-dimensional plane on the surface of a balloon. As the balloon inflates, objects on the
surface are retreating from every point uniformly. But therein lies the problem;
uniformity. Red shift observations imply
accelerating velocity that coincides with the galaxy’s distance from
Earth. The farther away it is in any
direction, the higher is its velocity.
This is impossibly incongruous with the ‘expanding in all directions’
argument.
Let’s
consider a basic example. Let A, B, and
C represent three points in space in a straight line. B is directly between A and C, and is
equidistant from each.
A --------------------
B -------------------- C
The
following variables represent the velocities between the various points.
a A
- C d C - A
b A
- B e C - B
c B
- C f B - A
Rates a, b,
and c are the velocities measured (or, inferred by the red shift data) by an
observer on point A. Rates d, e, and f
are the velocities measured by an observer on point C.
According to
the theory of accelerating expansion, an observer on A would find velocity ‘a’
faster than velocity b (a > b), which necessarily requires that velocity c
is greater than b (c > b). However, according
to the theory of universal expansion, the observer on C should observe that d
> e, and therefore f > e. To the
observer on A, B and C are moving faster apart than A and B, and to the
observer on C it is the opposite. Both cannot
be true in a physical sense. At this
point someone will attempt to employ a relativist explanation, however those
explanations are best attributed to gravitational effects and are improper here
because this example is making no consideration for mass.
If the
universe is expanding in all directions, any break from uniform velocity is
impossible. Any acceleration or
deceleration in the rate of expansion requires a center. Therefore, accepting the theory of non-centered
expansion negates the theory of accelerating expansion. Given that the red shift data increases with
the galaxy’s distance, conceding the theory of acceleration (in order to
maintain non-centric expansion) weakens the entire expansion conclusion
significantly because it has become incongruous with the red shift data. It is more probable there is an unexplained
gravitational/spacetime effect causing the red shift observations.
When
evaluating any theory, we must consider the probability of its accuracy. In order to accept BBT, we must accept the theory
of inflation, and that the universe contains five times more energy and matter
than we can observe or explain, and that we are at the center of this
expansion. The combined probability of
these theories is immeasurably low, yet science prefers them to no theory;
refusing to cede any territory to religion.
Science may gain credibility with the lay person by admitting what
cannot currently be explained, rather than persist with theories that are
highly improbable. Science has
historically been the voice of reason, leading people away from religious
fables. Perhaps science has overreached
what it can explain at this point, and has effectively created new fables to
battle the old ones.
Sustaining
BBT requires a minefield of highly improbable corollary assumptions, all of
which can vanish with the acknowledgement that, for a reason to date
unexplained, the light gathered from distant galaxies is increasingly red
shifted. There is no necessity to
attribute the red shift to motion. By introducing
this one undefined variable, the universe suddenly becomes a much
simpler place. Friar William of Ockham would
agree.
First you
have to decide how large of a system to buy (how many panels). To optimize the financial yield of our
system, we purchased an array that maximized the southern roof exposure of our
building. This array will produce about
70% of the electricity we use annually (our building is located in Appleton,
Wisconsin). This is about ideal, because
as you attempt to reach 100% solar, the marginal return on the incremental
investment in panels will diminish. In
the months we over produce (make more energy than we use), WE Energies pays us
a wholesale price for the overproduction.
The wholesale price is $.04/kwh, compared to the $.13/kwh we effectively
get by offsetting the energy we use in a month.
Keeping our investment to a 70% system minimizes the number of months we
overproduce, and thereby maximizes the rate of return on our investment.
Our system
will save us about $550 per month on average, and our loan payment (10 year
amortization) is only $420 per month. So
there you have it: zero down and positive cash flow every year. That’s better than free. When the system is paid off, it should save
around $7,000 per year, and the system has an expected useful life of 25 years.
