When Einstein defined the equivalence between mass and energy, he also defined what “support the geometry of space…

In his General Theory of Relativity, he defined the force of gravity in terms of the energy density of space. This implies the mass and energy associated with it supports the geometric structure space because the equation E=mc^2 tell us when energy is concentrated in the form of mass it causes the geometry of space to contract creating the curvature he associated with gravity.

Additionally, the Big Bang’s assumption the universe expansion is the result of the energy associated with its origin can only be explained by assuming it is pushing on its boundaries.

Additionally, we have observed that the CBM (cosmic background radiation) imparts the energy associated with its 2.725 Kelvin temperature to even perfectly “empty” space devoid of all gas, dust, and particular matter.

The fact that concentrating energy in the form of mass results in space contacting while increasing it by releasing the energy contained in mass cause it to expand support the assumption space that does not contain any particular mass is not empty but contains energy.

Therefore because, Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 tells us space without any particular matter is not empty but contains the mass equivalent of the CBM defined by that equation.

The mechanism responsible would be analogous to how the volume of a balloon is supported by the air inside of it.

For example, if the air pressure increases its volume will expand while if it decreases it will contract.

Yet it also tells us how one can explain the quantum properties of energy and mass in terms of it being an emergent property of space if it contains a continuous field of energy.

For example, by using the science of wave mechanics and the fact that Relativity tells us energy would move through space on a continuous field of energy such as the one provided by the cosmic background radiation unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an energy wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a quantized particle would be found.

Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

This explanation of why mass and energy are quantized is consistent with the observations of the environment defined by quantum mechanics in that the mathematical properties associated with the wave function will continue to evolve as a wave moving through space and only reduces of “collapses” to a quantized packed of energy when it is observed or encounters an object.

This defines how Einstein could have explain what an “empty” volume of space contains AND the observations associated with its quantization in terms of it being an emergent property of the continuous energy field or space as defined by him.

This also answers the question of how an electromagnetic wave can propagate though seeming “empty space because as was shown above what appears to be empty space is not empty but contains continuous field of energy which, it can propagate similar to how wave propagates on water

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable https://www.theimagineershome.com/Einstein%E2%80%99s-Explanation2.html

The post What supports the geometry of space-time? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

https://www.theimagineershome.com/Einstein%E2%80%99s-Explanation2.html

The existence of a singularity at the center of a black hole is often taken as proof that the Theory of General Relativity has broken down, which is perhaps not unexpected as it occurs in conditions where quantum effects should become important. However, as is shown below The General Theory of Relativity tells us the strength of the gravitational field at the event horizon of a black hole causes time to stop for all observers.. The question is how can matter move beyond the event horizon if time has stopped with respect to all reference frames. Since motion is define as the change in an objects position over time the General Theory of Relatively does not break down because it tells us the movement of all objects and matter must also stop at that point. Therefore it can not continue to collapse to the point called a singularity.

    In other words, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a black hole its laws do not break down because it tells us time freezes at its “surface” or event horizon with respect to all observers. This means it must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to the one defined by the radius of it event horizon. Therefore, a singularity cannot form at its center because matter cannot continue to or collapse beyond that point.

    The question we need to answer is should we assume that quantum mechanics breaks down because it predicts the existence of a singularity in the center of a black hole

    Einstein told us that time is dilated by a gravitational field. Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

    This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface. The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

    Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.

    However, it also tells us, the laws of physics developed by Einstein for a space-time environment are not violated in black hole with respect to all external observers because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field would not allow the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

    However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither “pushed not pulled by any force and Therefore, continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began”.

    This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

    (Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side. Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

    (However, some have suggested that a singularity would form in a black hole if the collapse of a star was not symmetrical with respect to its center. In other words, if one portion of its surface moved at a higher velocity that another towards its center it could not be consider an inertial reference frame because it would be pushed or pulled due to the differential gravity force cause be its uneven collapse. But the laws governing time dilation in Einstein’s theory tell us that time would move slower for those sections of the surface that are moving faster allowing the slower ones to catch up. This tells us that every point on the surface of star will be at the event horizon at the exact same time and therefore its center will not experience any pushing or pulling at the time of its formation and therefore could be considered an inertial reference frame.)

    The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center. The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

    Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for all observers who is at the center of the clasping mass and the contraction cannot continue from their perspectives.

    However, it also tells us, the laws of physics developed by Einstein for a space-time environment are not violated in black hole with respect to an observer who is at the its center because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field would not allow the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

    Yet, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

    As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reaches the critical circumference. Therefore, an observer on the surface of that star will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

    This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

    However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing. Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference. The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

    Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stopped with respect to all reference frames that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

    However, the contraction of a star’s surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time in its external environment would become infinitely dilated or stop when the surface of a collapsing star reaches its critical circumference.

    Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference with respect to the external environment of an observer who riding on its surface the contraction cannot continue because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

    However, it also tells us, the laws of physics are not violated in black hole with respect to all riding on the surface of a star because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

    This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces the collapse of matter must stop at the critical circumference.

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable https://www.theimagineershome.com/Einstein%E2%80%99s-Explanation2.html

The post The laws of physics do NOT break down in a black hole. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

According to some physicists we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while defining the change brought on by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH but IN them.

But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. However, many physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

Yet, the observable properties of time are something that most of us can agree upon.

One of the most persistent is that it is not directly perceived as matter or space but as a physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.

This indicates a unit of time may be measure of sequential ordering of change similar to how a unit of length is measure of the position of an object in space. This is because similar to time, length is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located.

However, Einstein defined the energy required for a change in space in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time.

For example, he defined the change caused by gravity NOT in terms of their rigidity but in terms of a dynamic interaction between them

But in his block universe he did not define change in those terms because according to it each block, with a different spatial configuration already exists and what we perceive as change or the passage of time is caused by our movement THROUGH them.

However, this suggests your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a block of space-time waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

However, Einstein provided another interpretation for the changes the human consciousness associates with time when he as was mentioned earlier defined gravity in a space-time environment in terms of a dynamic interaction between them. This is because it gives us a physical mechanism for defining the ordering of change.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots “living” on the surface of a balloon. The “surface” of the balloon will represent the “surface” of three-dimensional space and the three-dimensional space outside of it will represent the time dimension in Einstein theories.

For example, if one pushes down on its surface, it will change spatial the configuration of the two dots. The change in its surface would be define not only by the distance it move but by the direction.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined gravity in terms of the dynamic interaction between the space and time dimension. For example, the energy of a rocket will change the configuration of the “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to the time dimension. This means, similar to the balloon one can define that change NOT in terms of the rigidity of space time but in terms of its dynamic properties.

If true as was also mentioned earlier change is a result of a dynamic interaction between space and time it means the future is the result of an interaction of the past with the present and the decisions we make can and do affect the future.

However, another advantage of assuming that is it is that gives us a way to define why human consciousness perceives it to be irreversible in terms of its spatial properties.

For example, if we removed the pressure on the balloon the two dots would return to their original position. However, that removal causes the dots to move in the opposite direction from were when it was applied. Yet even though their positions are indistinguishable from their original ones the dots “living” on its surface would know they had not moved backwards in time because they can observe the sequential ordering of the changes that brought them there. In other words, it would tell them they had not moved backwards in time even though they occupied same points in space.

Putting it another way the sense of order that tells the human consciousness time always moves forward is a result of the fact that consciousness also gives them the ability to observe the order of the spatial changes take place in our environment.

However, assuming it is a measure of the sequential ordering of change ALSO tells us why the laws of physics are NOT reversible with respect to it even though they appear to be. This is because as was mentioned earlier if it is measured from an arbitrary reference point in space the change caused by their reversal will ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS create a new event (with respect to that point) in the sequence of events that returned it to its original configuration.

Therefore, if one accepts time as being a measure of the sequent ordering of a spatial of change in an environment the future or forward movement of it can NEVER repeat NEVER be reversed.

In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a flexible ball of space-time as Einstein’s definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why we feel time always moves forward even though the laws of physics it MAY not.

The post Why the arrow of time is irreversible. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the observed value of the vacuum energy density or the small value of the cosmological constant and the theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.

Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude.

In quantum physics, the vacuum or zero-point energy is the amount of energy in a point “volume” of space as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal. Its existence is derived from that principle which tells us the mathematical point in space quantum mechanics uses to define particles have an inherent fuzziness. Therefore, it is assumed that it oscillates or fluctuate around that point.

One reason for the cosmological constant problem MAY be because Quantum Mechanics states that all fields, such as the electromagnetic one, must be quantized at each and every point in space. It also assumes the evolution of the oscillations associated with the uncertainty principle are defined by wavefunction. Therefore, according to theory, even a pure vacuum has a VERY, VERY, VERY large number of point oscillators each contributing to its energy.

However, this would be true if and ONLY if all fields including an electromagnetic one is quantized at each and every point in space.

BUT THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE.

For example, Johannes Kepler was able mathematically define the laws of planetary motion in terms of a HYPOTHETICAL point called the center of gravity which defines the evolution of their orbits. This is because in physics, the center of mass is the unique point where the energy of the distributed mass sums to zero.

However, we know a planet has a volume bigger than the unique point which defines its center of gravity,

Similarly, the point in space that quantum mechanics uses to define the evolution of quantum system may ONLY be a hypothetical one which defines the UNIQUE point where its energy distribution of that system sums to zero

This conclusion is supported by the fact the fact particles such as an electron can be diffracted because it is impossible to explain that if was a mathematical point that has no volume. Another observation is that particles are observed to collide in particle accelerators. This could not happen if they had no volume.

However, to understand zero-point energy and why the cosmological constant predicted by quantum mechanics is so high in terms of dynamics of space-time we must first establish a connection between evolution of the wave function which defines a quantum environment and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity its evolution is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was just mentioned the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

One can connect them because the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” confining the movement of both an electromagnetic wave and point defined by the wavefunction will result in it being reflected back on itself thereby resulting in the creation of a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space.  Additionally, it tells us its energy can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency of that standing wave while at the same time.  Additionally, it tells us the particle defined by the wave function would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength of its standing wave.

Putting it another way if an electromagnetic wave or the wave function is prevented from moving through space either by being observed or encountering an object it will be reduced or “Collapse” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

However, as was mentioned earlier the fact that a particle has an EXTENDED volume suggests the point the wave function uses to defines its evolution MAY ONLY be a hypothetical one which defines where its energy distribution sums to zero similar to how the point called the center of gravity can be used to define the evolution of a planets position.

As was mentioned earlier the discrepancy between the vacuum energy predicted by quantum mechanics and its observed value may be due to the fact that it applies the uncertainty principal to each and every mathematical point in space.

Therefore, to understand why this discrepancy occurs one must show how and why that would NOT define the vacuum energy in quantum system.

As was just shown Relativity and the science of wave mechanics tell us the energy of the standing wave would be distributed over a volume of space-time that corresponds to is wavelength.  However, as was also shown earlier the mathematical point quantum mechanics uses to define a particle position MAY only represent where energy of distribution of this standing wave sums to zero.

    This means to accurately determine the vacuum energy in a quantum system one must FIRST define why one should NOT repeat NOT apply the uncertainty to the mathematical point defined by the wave function BUT TO energy “volume” of a particle.

    The fact that both of these theories assume that energy or information volume of a system can nether be created or destroy provides the basis for the connecting the uncertainty principal to the dynamics of a space-time environment and the cosmological constant.

THIS IS BECAUSE IT DEFINES THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPAL AND WHY THE MEASUREMENT OF ANY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THAT VOLUME INCLUDING THE MOMENTUM OR POSITION WILL AFFECT THE OTHER.

As was mentioned before quantum mechanics defines both momentum and position with respect to a one-dimensional point in the mathematical field of the wave function. However, the accuracy of the information as to where that point is in relation to the center of its information volume is directly related to how much of it is taken from the system. This means the more accurate the measurement the more information regarding it must be removed from the system and the less is available to measure its other component.

For example, as was mentioned earlier because the information volume of a system remains constant the more of it is taken out regarding its momentum means there will be less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less information left in its volume to define its position. While the more information taken out of it regarding its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less information left in that volume to define it.

However, the same would be true when measuring either the momentum or position of a particle in a relativistic system because its energy is also conserved. Therefore because, the accuracy of a measurement is directly related to the amount to energy taken out of a system; the measurement of each component of a momentum or position will affect the other. For example, the added energy required to make a more accurate measurement of a systems momentum will result in there being less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less energy in that system to define it. While the more additional energy required to make a more accurate measurement of its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less energy left in the system to define it.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics define the cosmological constant in terms of the summation of amount of energy in a point “volume” of space has as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal

However as was also mentioned earlier the point in space that quantum mechanics uses to define a system may ONLY be a hypothetical one used to define its evolution similar to how the center or gravity is used to define the evolution of objects in orbit.

This suggest, to define the vacuum energy of a quantum system and the Cosmological Constant one would have to derive it NOT by applying Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal to all mathematical points in space but to the extended volume of space that point represents.

THERE ARE SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL WAYS OF VERIFYING THIS CONCLUSION.

For example, we can determine the cross section and therefore the volume of a particle by the frequency of their collisions in particle accelerators. Then using that volume determine how many oscillators occupy a given volume and apply the uncertainty principal to them instead of every mathematical point to calculate the how much vacuum energy they would create. Then compare that value with the observed one.

Hopefully this may greatly reduce or eliminate the disagreement between the observed value of vacuum energy density and the one suggested by quantum field theory because it would reduce the number of oscillators in a given volume of space.

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable

https://www.theimagineershome.com/Einstein%E2%80%99s-Explanation2.html

The post Solving the cosmologic constant problem in terms of the dynamics of space time. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Recently it has been suggested a force called Dark Energy is needed to account for the observations suggesting the universe’s expansion is accelerating. However, there is another reason which is related to effect gravity has on time.

Einstein told us and it has been observed the rate at which time passes is perceived to be 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 the gravitational potential of the universe’s was greater due to the more densely pack matter, the estimate of its rate of expansion would be slower than it actually was if that were not taken into consideration.

Putting it another way the dilation or the slowing of time caused by the differential gravitational potential between the past and the present means the universe was expanding faster that it would appear to be from the present.

However, we also know gravity has a slowing effect on the universe’s expansion and because as the density of matter decreases due to its increasing volume the rate of that slowing also decreases.

This means the rate of its expansion would be faster than it appeared to be from the perspective of present due to the effects gravity has on time while the rate of its slowing would be declining due to its decreasing gravitational potential as it expands.

Yet, because of the non-linear effects of these two process 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 ITS EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE EFFECTS ITS GRAVITY HAS ON TIME WHICH WOULD CAUSES IT TO APPEAR TO EXPAND SLOWER IN THE PAST THAN IT ACTUALLY DID.

One could verify this conclusion by using the observation that about 4 billion years ago the universe’s expansion appears to have change from decelerating to an accelerated phase. This is because one could derive its actual rate of expansion in the past by using Einstein equations to determine how much time would have been slowed due to the differential gravitational potential between the past and present. If it was found after that correction that about 4 billion years ago that actual rate of expansion was faster than it is now it would suggest that the its expansion is NOT accelerating but decelerating.

Some may say the slowing of time slowing would not affect its expansion because it is expanding along with the entire universe. However, Einstein define the time dilation only in terms of the affects a differential gravitational potential has on it therefore it would not be affected by its expansion. Some have also suggested that because it 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 the relativistic properties gravity has on time already been already been accounted 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 its rate of expansion he or she would NOT need to use the slowing effects gravity has on time 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 it from the future. He would have to use it because due to its expansion a differential gravitational potential would have developed between the past and present. Yet as was mentioned earlier the effects gravity has on time tell us from the perspective of the present its expansion rate would be moving slower than it actually was from the perspective of someone who is present at the time when that expansion was taking place. In other words, since Friedman’s equation does not consider the effects the differential gravitational density has on time it would predict it to be slower in the past than it actually was.

The post Is Gravitational time dilation responsible for Dark Energy? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

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 post Why a singularity cannot not exist exist in a black hole. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

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 super massive 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 energy in a black hole caused by the increasing temperature of a collapsing universe.

Some will probably say that is it crazy to assume that can cause its rapid expansion however we think it is crazier to assume that it began as a single one-dimens

ional point called a singularity as is suggested by both the “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology” and the Big Bang.

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

However, Einstein defined gravity in terms of the energy density of space. This means, as the temperature and therefore the energy density sounding a black hole increases its event horizon would expand because of the decrease in the energy differential between it and the surrounding space. This would result in their energy being released creating a positive feedback loop that would result in increasing the temperature of the universe. 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 a positive feed from a large number over a short period of time COULD result in an EXPONENTIAL increase in the universe’s temperature which would result in its rapid expansion.

As was mentioned earlier the science of thermodynamics tells us the universe’s temperature would rise dramatically as it contracted. This means 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 the energy contained in black holes to be released.

One advantage to this is that it defines a mechanism for the origins of our current universe in terms of its observable properties. This is because, 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 the beginning based on their numbers and rate at which their energy would have been released by the process outlined above.

However, any cyclic model of our current universe must be able to explain the reoccurrence of the cosmic background radiation which was emitted when ionized electrons and protons first became bound to form electrically neutral hydrogen atoms. This means that the temperature before the expansion began MUST repeat MUST have been high enough to ionize them.

Putting it another way it is not necessary to assume each cycle starts out from the unobservable prosperities a singularity before expanding as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology and the Big Bang assumes because as was show above the laws of thermodynamic tell us it could have begun by an exponential release of energy from large numbers of black holes.

To determine if this idea is a creditable, one must FIRST determine if heat can cause an increase in the rate at which energy is emitted from a black hole. Using that information one MAY repeat MAY be able to calculate the temperature at which its expansion would have begun and how rapidly it would cascade though all of the remaining black holes in the universe. Then using that information, one may be able to 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. This may allow us to get a more accurate estimate of its age.

However, as was mentioned earlier to explain the Cosmic background radiation the temperature at the time the expansion began MUST repeat MUST have been high enough to ionize MOST repeat MOST if not all of the protons and electrons.

If true it would mean the concentration of the lighter elements in the beginning would be different form that predicted by the currently accepted Big Bang or Sir Roger Penrose Conformal Cyclic Cosmology due to the fact the rate of expansion would be different. However, if it was found that it provides a more accurate accounting of the present concentration of elements in our universe it would have a tendency to support this theoretical model

In other words, the above model would allow us to define our universe’s expansion based on the mathematical analysis of its observable properties instead of the unobservable properties of a quantum singularity as is suggest by the Cyclic Cosmological model defined above.

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Jan. 2021

The post Could Black holes be responsible for the expansion period in our universe’s history? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

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.

The reason why the existence of dark matter does not APPEAR repeat APPEAR to be as prevalent in spherical galaxies as in spiral ones is in part because spherical pattern of their stars orbits results in the offset that earlier was associated with dark matter to become spread out over a much larger circular volume of space that the one created by the stars in a spiral one. This would result in reducing the dept of the gravity well that as was mentioned earlier associated with dark matter resulting its effect on their obits to be diminished because it is spread out over a larger volume.

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 it’s 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 affect 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.

The post Einstein’s theories CAN tell us where the majority of the Dark Matter is hiding. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

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.

The post An alternative explanation for the variations in the cosmic background radiation appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

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 post Gravity time dilation and a simple explanation of Dark Energy appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.