Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

In an earlier post An alternative to a singularity? Aug 15 2008 we defined what happens to matter and energy as it falls into a black hole in terms of inertial reference frames. However, we did not attempt to define what happens after that. The reason was because we must use Einstein’s mathematical definitions of the curvature in the geodesics that define how mass and energy move in a space-time environment to do so. They tells us that it would take an infinite amount of time mass and energy to form singularity after passing through the event horizon of a black hole for the same reason we that observe it to take an infinite amount of time to reach it from the outside.

This is because as mass is added to it the curvature defining the gravitational geodesic that defines its event horizon expands adding another layer to it. However, that does not mean the matter that is under that layer is free to move towards its center because the gravitational curvature in the geodesic that defines its movement is still there but at a lower gravitational potential. This means any matter that exists at a lower level could NOT move towards its center to form a singularity because according to Einstein’s math it can only move around the geodesic generated by the gravitational potential at that level. This tells us it would take an infinite amount of time to cross to a lower gravitational level for the same reason as it would take an infinite amount of time for it to pass through the event horizon which defines the existence of a black hole.

This also tells us that we have either misinterpreted the math that tells us a singularity can exist at the center of a black hole or we must rewrite them based on the observations of how mass and energy interact with the event horizon of a black hole. We DO NOT believe we have any other options base on those observations.

So if a singularly is not at the center of a black hole what is.

We know the densest form of observable matter is found in a neutron star where the gravitational forces are strong enough to overcome the forces keeping electrons protons and neutron apart. We also know that a neutron star is capable of becoming a black hole if it absorbs enough mass and energy to become one. However, that does not mean that it collapses to a singularity. This is because according Einstein math a black hole could be the result of enough matter accumulating on its surface to cause its gravitational geodesic to circle back on itself. Putting it another way a black hole may just be made up of SOLID BALL of the extremely dense mass of neutrons.

 

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Mar. 2021

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 1
2007 thru
2010

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$15.00

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 2
2011 thru
2014

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$16.00

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 3
2015 thru
2020

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$18.00

 

 

Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

In  2001 Sir Roger Penrose developed a theory known as “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology“ in which he postulated the universe has gone through infinite cycles.  He suggested each cycle starts out from a singularity before expanding and generating clumps of matter, which eventually gets sucked up by supermassive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation.

However, another way in which black holes could have contributed to its expansion that does not have its origins in a singularity but in rapid release of a black hole energy by Hawking Radiation.

Some will probably say that is it crazy to assume Hawking Radiation can cause its rapid expansion however we think it is crazier to assume that it began as a single one-dimensional point called a singularity.

Cosmologists have not yet determined if the universe will keep on expanding or enter a contraction phase. However, if it does enter one the science of thermodynamics tells us its temperature would rise dramatically as it contracted.

However, as its temperature rises the rate at which Hawking radiation would be released from black hole would also increase.  This would result in increasing the universe’s temperature and creating a positive feedback loop that would result in exponential increase in its temperature. The energy released by a single one would only result in a small increase in that rate. However, the cascading release of energy due to the positive feed from a large number over a short period of time COULD result in a VERY VERY VERY large temperature increase over a very short period of time and therefore a rapid expansion.

Putting it another way it is not necessary to assume each cycle starts out from a singularity before expanding as Sir Roger Penrose did but to assume that it began by the Hawking radiation emitted from large numbers of black holes.

One advantage to basing a model on the release of the energy in black holes by Hawking radiation is that it defines a mechanism for the start of its expansion in terms of an observable properties of our universe. Additionally, one can, through observations estimate the total energy content and number of the black holes in universe AT THE TIME OF ITS COLLAPSE based on how many presently exist and how many will be created when all of the stars use up their fuel and collapse to one.  This would allow one to estimate its rate of its expansion from its very beginning based on their numbers and rate at which their energy would have been released by Hawking Radiation.

To determine if this idea is a creditable solution to its origins, one must FIRST determine if heat would cause an increase in the rate at which Hawking radiation is emitted.  After that one maybe be able to determine the rate at which the universe expanded based on how rapidly that increase would cascade though all of the remaining black holes in the universe. If that is possible, we may be able derive the rate of the universe expansion at every point in its history including the point when its expansion began based on observations of the present universe.  If its present expansion rate agrees with that value, it should increase its creditability.

In other words, it would allow us to define our universe’s expansion based on the mathematical analysis of the observable properties of our environment instead of the unobservable properties of a quantum singularity as is suggest by the big bang model and the “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology“ model.

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Jan. 2021

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 1
2007 thru
2010

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$15.00

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 2
2011 thru
2014

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$16.00

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 3
2015 thru
2020

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$18.00

 

 

Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

    Dark Matter is a form of matter which is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and the remaining is made up visible or baryonic matter. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including the gravitational affects it has on the orbits of stars in galaxies which cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. The reason it is called dark is because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, which is why it is difficult to detect.

    However, we DISAGREE that A VAST MAJORITY of it cannot be explained by the accepted theories.  This is because Einstein defined gravity in terms of the “depth” of an energy or gravity well in the “surface” of space-time caused by the energy density of an environment and NOT on the existence of visible or baryonic matter. This means the energy of electromagnetic fields, photons and all other forms of energy along with that associated with visible matter that contribute to its energy density MUST be taken consideration when gravitational potential.

This suggests the reason it does not appear to interact with an electromagnetic field is because a large part of it MAY BE made up of one.

The observation electromagnetic energy prevents the visible matter in stars from collapsing to a black hole supports this conclusion because it tells us its gravitational energy MUST BE oppositely directed with respect to that of visible matter.

Some might say, if true it should have an observable effect on the orbits of planets. The reason it DOES NOT is because it creates an offset in the gravitational field of a solar system which would be equal to the energy it provides

    One can understand why by using an analogy of the potential energy of water in well where its level represents the gravitational potential of visible matter and depth the water represents the quantity provided by electromagnetic energy.  One would measure the depth of an object floating on its surface in terms of how far it was below the top of the well while defining the total potential energy of the well by adding to it how far that surface was offset by the water.

    As was mentioned earlier Einstein defined TOTAL gravitational potential in terms of the “depth” of gravity well in caused by the energy density of an environment

     Therefore, similar to the example of well mentioned above one would measure the depth of the gravitational potential experienced by a planet “floating” on the “surface” of a solar system in terms of the depth the visible matter is below its top of that “surface” while defining its total gravitational potential by adding to it the offset created in it by the electromagnetic energy contained in a star.

    However this means to determine the total gravitational potential contributed to the universe by the gravity well of a star one must add gravitational potential caused by the energy density of its electromagnetic energy to that contributed by its visible matter.

    Some may say if true a black hole would contain twice the mass or gravitational potential than it does because as was mentioned earlier if electromagnetic energy prevents the visible matter in stars from collapsing to one think it should contribute to that potential when it collapses.  However, it does NOT because its collapse is the result of the electromagnetic energy supporting it being radiated into space therefore it would not contribute to its gravitational potential.

    This means according to Einstein the total gravitation potential of the universe must be at least TWICE that contributed by the visible matter of a healthy star.

The remaining Dark Matter may be contained in black holes or interstellar dust particles.  However, the fact we can UNEQUIVOCALLY determine how much of it locked in HEALTHY stars WILL help us determine if its are enough account for it or if not, we have to less obvious sources.

For example, electromagnetic energy not only contributes to the gravitation potential of stars as was shown earlier but also to creating it in the interstellar space is moving through and therefore to the total gravitational potential of the universe. Granted the energy of one unit of electromagnetic energy may not contribute much but in large enough numbers they would make up a significant portion of dark matter which would effect the predictions of its future.

It should be remembered; Einstein defined the depth of a gravity well in space in terms of the ABSOLUTE value of its energy density. Therefore, to determine the total gravitational potential of both dark and visible matter one must include all forms of energy to determine its value.

Please click here for a brief summary of the ideas presented in this blog.

In the 1950s, there were two competing theories regarding the origin of the universe.

The first or the Steady State Theory was formulated by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle. It postulated that the universe was homogeneous in space and time and had remained that way forever.

The second is called the Big Bang theory, which is based on the observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929 that the universe was expanding.

However, a few physicists led by George Gamow a proponent of the big bang model showed an expanding universe meant that it might have had its beginning in a very hot infinitely dense environment, which then expanded to generate the one we live in today.

They were able to show only radiation emitted approximately 300,000 years after the beginnings of its expansion should be visible today because before that time the universe was so hot that protons and electrons existed only as free ions making the universe opaque to radiation. It was only after it cooled enough due to is expansion to enable protons and electrons to join did it become visible. This period is referred as the age of “recombination”.

Additionally, they predicted this Cosmic Background Radiation or what was left over from that period would have cooled form several thousand degrees Kelvin back when it was generated to 2.7 today due to the expansion of the universe.

The conflict between the Steady State and Big Bang Theory was resolved when it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 because it showed the temperature of the universe had changed through time, which was a direct contradiction to the Steady State Model”.

However, if the universe began as an expansion of in an infinitely dense hot environment one would expect the universe and the Cosmic Background Radiation to be homogeneous because an infinitely dense one must have been, by definition homogeneous. Therefore, if the universe was homogeneous when it began it should still be.

But the existence of galactic clusters and the variations in the intensity of the cosmic background radiation discovered by NASA’s WMAP and more recently the European Space Agency Planck satellite showed the universe was not homogeneous either now or at the time when the Cosmic Background Radiation was emitted.

Many proponents of the big bang model assume that these variations or “anisotropy” in the universe are caused by quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space. They define quantum fluctuations as a temporary change in the energy density of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

However, there is an alternative explanation for the variations or “anisotropy” in the cosmic background radiation that NOT based on quantum fluctuations.

We still have not been able to determine if the universe will continue to expand indefinitely or if it will eventually collapse in on itself. But if it did collapse the heat generated could provide another explanation for the variations in the Cosmic Background other than quantum fluctuations if it was enough to cause protons and electrons to become ionized again. This is because the radiation pressure caused by the heat of its collapse would result in it again expanding and cooling which would enable protons and electron to again rejoin creating another age of “recombination”

This suggest that the variations in the CBM MAY NOT be due to any quantum phenomena as is suggested by the Big Bang hypothesis but by an unevenness of the collapse of a previous universe.

Many proponents of the Big Bang hypothesis have ALSO suggested it is the only model that can accurately predict abundance of the light-elements in today’s universe. This is because both theory and observation have led astronomers to believe the mechanism responsible for creating the lighter elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) occurred in the first few minutes after the Big Bang before the CBM was emitted, while the heavier elements are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the universe.

However, the abundance of those light elements would be dependent on rate the universe expanded and the temperature profile at each point in it. Yet because as was mentioned earlier they are unable to observe what happened before the CBM many use the observation of their abundance in today’s universe IN PART to help them define the conditions responsible for their creation. Therefore, the reason why the big bang hypothesis CAN verify the abundance of the light-elements in today’s universe MAY be because it was used (in part) to determine those conditions.

However, as was mentioned earlier one could use observations of our present universe to estimate if and when the heat generated by the momentum of its collapse would become great enough to cause it to expand.

If it was found that it was great enough to cause protons and electrons to exist only as free ions before the radiation pressure caused it to enter an expansion phase then another round CMB would be emitted.

Yet this also means one could use the observable properties of our present universe to estimate the expansion rate and temperature at each point in its history even before the CBM was created. This would allow one derive a mechanism that is responsible for the abundance of the lighter elements that would be based on observations which would be independent of what is it is now.

Putting it another way, there is another explanation of the “anisotropy” in the Cosmic Background Radiation other than quantum fluctuations and the abundance of the lighter elements other than the one promoted by the Big Bang theory that is testable based on observations of our present universe which DOES NOT includ them in defining their creation.

Recently observations have suggested a force called Dark Energy is needed to account for the fact the expansion of the universe is accelerating. However. that may be an illusion created by the effect gravity has on time.

Einstein told us and it has been observed the rate at which time is perceived to move is slower in all environments where the gravitational potential is greater with respect where it is being observed. This means the further we look back in time, where universe gravitational potential of the more densely pack matter was greater the estimate of its rate of expansion would be less than it actually was if those effects were not taken into consideration. In other words, if one had not considered the Relativistic slowing of time caused by its gravitational potential that rate would be faster in the past than the present value suggests.

However, we also know the gravitational potential has a slowing effect on the universe’s expansion and because that potential decreases as its volume increase, its expansion rate also decreases. In other words, as the universe expands the slowing effect of gravity has on it decreases.

Putting it another way, the rate of universe’s expansion would to appear to occur more rapidly than it actually did from the perspective of present due to the effect gravity has on time while its actual rate would decline due to its gravitational potential as the universe expands.

Therefore, to determine its actual rate of expansion at each point in its history one must not only take into account the gravitational effect on time that would make it appear that it was slower that it actual was but one must also consider how gravity actually causes its expansion rate to decrease.

Yet, because of the non-linear effects between the slowing of time created by universe’s gravitational potential with respect to effects it has on its rate of expansion there will be a point in its history where one will APPEAR to overtake the other.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS POSSIBLE THE OBSERVATIONS SUGGESTING THE UNIVERSE EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE FACT THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THE UNIVERSE CAUSES TIME TO APPEAR MOVE SLOWER IN THE PAST THAN IT ACTUALLY DID.

This gives us a way of validating if the gravitational potential and the slowing effect it has on time is what gives us the IMPRESSION the expansion of the universe is accelerating because it has been observed that about 4 billion years ago the universe’s expansion appears to have change from decelerating to an accelerated phase.

This because one can calculate its actual expansion rate by determining how much time would have appeared to move slower due to the differential gravitational potential between the past and present and use that value to determine its actual rate. If it was found that about 4 billion years ago the effect the slowing of time on our perception of its past expansion rate is less than slowing effect gravity would have on, it would appear as if that rate was accelerating even though it was still decelerating.

Some may say the slowing of time slowing would not affect the timing of the expansion because it is also expanding. However, Einstein define the time dilation only in terms of the affects a differential gravitational potential has on it therefore an expanding universe would not affect it. Some may also say that because the universe is expanding the gravitational potential is expanding and weakening at the same rate therefore when we look back the effects it will have on the timing of its expansion will cancel. However, Einstein tells us the timing of events that cause the universe to expand is locked in the past along with its gravitational potential at the time the expansion took place. Therefore, one must take into account the differential gravitational potential between the past and present universe when defining its expansion.

Some have also suggested Relativistic properties space have already been accounted for in the Friedman model that was used in part by scientist to define the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, that is NOT the case because when someone in the past measures the rate of change in the universe’s expansion rate he would NOT need to use it because his entire spatial slice of the universe would be at the same gravitational potential. However this would NOT be the case for someone looking at that spatial slice from the future. He would have to use it because due to the expansion of the universe a differential gravitational potential would have developed between the past and the present. But as the universe expands the rate of change of its expansion will slow because the gravitational density of the universe has decreased while at the same time the relativistic effects defined by Friedman model will also decreased because of the decrease in gravitation density between the past and present. Yet the relativistic properties of space tell us from the perspective of the present the rate of the universe’s expansion is moving faster than it actually is from the perspective of someone who is present at the time when that expansion was taking place. In other words, Friedman equation defines how the rate of the rate of universe’s expansion changes due to a differential gravitational density between a past and present but it does not define the actual rate of from the perspective of someone who was measuring it from his spatial slice. Therefore, to define the ACTUAL rate at which the expansion of the universe is changing from one point to the next one must determine how the change in gravitational densely effects it from the perspective of an observer at each point in its history and NOT with respect to observer who is looking back at it from the present as the Friedman equation does.

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Nov. 2020

Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 1
2007 thru
2010

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$15.00

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 2
2011 thru
2014

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$16.00

The Road to Unifying
QM with Relativity

part 3
2015 thru
2020

Ebook
$8.00

Paper Back
$18.00

 

« Previous Articles    
Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories is based on WordPress platform.