The post Quantum Tunneling in space time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Many believe the ability of a particle to penetrate through a potential energy barrier that is higher in energy than its kinetic energy can only be explain by assuming it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
However, that MAY NOT be true because it could be due to the dynamics of an electromagnetic wave in spacetime.
But before begin we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of an electromagnetic wave in spacetime. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of spacetime is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, 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 spacetime.
One can connect them because the science of wave mechanics and relatively tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through spacetime unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to threedimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a 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 that the wave function associates with a particle.
As was mentioned earlier the mathematical properties of the wave functions defines the evolution of a quantum system in terms of its wave particle duality. However, as was shown above one can understand why if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a spacetime because if it is prevented from evolving through space by an observation it presents itself as a particle.
As was also mentioned earlier many believe the ability of a particle to penetrate through a potential energy barrier that is higher in energy than the its kinetic energy can only be explain by assuming it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
However, one can use the science of wave mechanics to show that MAY NOT be true.
It and observations of waves tell us when the crests of two waves collide will produce a wave with more energy. This means if crests of the standing wave responsible for a particle mentioned above collide, they will produce a wave which MAY have enough kinetic energy to go over a potential energy barrier that is higher than that associated with the original wave.
One could validate this conclusion in terms of the physical connection mentioned above between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of an electromagnetic wave in spacetime. Because if it is true one should be able to use it to define PROBABILITY of where and when the crests of the two waves associated with wave function would most likely interact to produce one with enough energy overcome the kinetic energy barrier. If that probability agrees with the observed number that passes through the barrier it would support that assumption.
The post Quantum Tunneling in space time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post How should we define reality? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Some define it based on a quantitative mathematical analysis of observations.
For example, Quantum mechanics defines the “reality” or the state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made. However, defining reality in terms of probabilities means that each probabilistic outcome of an event becomes a reality in the future. This is why some proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.
This also may be why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that
“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”
However, others define reality in terms of deterministic proprieties of cause and effect.
For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a causal relationship between the movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a reality which could predict their future movements based on observations of their earlier movements.
Both the wave function of quantum mechanics and Newton’s gravitational laws are valid definitions of reality because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.
However, this does not mean that they accurately define the environment responsibility for those realities.
For example, at the time of their discovery Newton’s gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they did not explain why those those laws exist.
However, Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an “alternative reality” that could explain them in terms of a distortion in spacetime. However, it did not alter or change the validity of Newton’s gravitational laws when the velocities were small with respect to the speed of light, they are still valid.
This shows, just as there was room for an alternative “reality” which could explain Newton’s laws there could be one that defines the predictive powers of quantum probabilities that would not affect the validity of those predictions. This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory’s mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.
As mentioned earlier quantum mechanics defines reality in terms of probabilities, which means each probabilistic outcome becomes a reality in the future. However, it also means one must assume separate realities are created for the possible outcomes of every event.
However, this would not be true if those probabilities can be derived in terms of an interaction between a quantum system and the physical properties of the universe.
For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after the roll. This is because the probability of getting a six is related to or caused by its physical interaction with the properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. In other words, what defines the reality getting a six is not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies. Putting it another way. the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.
As was mentioned earlier many proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities because it describes the interactions of a quantum system with the universe in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. This means there must a separated universe for all possible outcomes of an event.
However, even though the reality that appears when a dice is rolled in a casino can be determined in terms of a probably does not mean all possibilities appear in their own separate casino. This is because as was mentioned earlier the probabilities involved in the roll of dice does not define the reality of the casino but that the casino defines those probabilities. In other words, the fact that casino define the probability of the role of dice tells us that it will have definite outcome in the casino
Similarly, just because quantum mechanics describes the interactions of a quantum system in terms of probabilities, we should not assume they define the reality of the universe because it is possible the universe defines those probabilities.
This also shows how one defines reality depends on if all you care about is that a six appears on the roll of dice or if you want know why you rolled it.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2021
The Road to Unifying 


The post How should we define reality? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Is Gravitational time dilation responsible for Dark Energy? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>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.
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, 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 its actual rate of slowing would be declining due to its decreasing gravitational potential as it expands.
Yet, because of the nonlinear effects between the slowing of time created by universe’s differential gravitational potential and the 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 ITS EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE EFFECTS ITS GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL HAS ON TIME WHICH WOULD CAUSES IT TO APPEAR MOVE 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 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
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 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.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2021
The Road to Unifying 


The post Is Gravitational time dilation responsible for Dark Energy? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Einstein’s explanation of mass and why it is resistance to a change in motion. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Physicists who are proponents of the Standard Model realized in order for it to agree with observations it was necessary to imagine a new field called the Higgs which must exist everywhere in the universe to explain what mass is and its resistance to acceleration. However, shoring up existing theories by inventing new theoretical components to the universe is dangerous, and in the past led physicists to hypothesize a universal aether but the more math they did, the more they realized that the Higgs field simply had to be real. The only problem? By the very way they’d defined it, the Higgs field would be virtually impossible to observe.
However, if they had spent the time to analyze the conceptual foundations of Einstein, they would have realized that he had already explained mass and its resistance to motion in terms of his math and observations.
He was able to explained the physicality of mass in terms of an increase in the energy density of space while defining its resistance to a change in motion terms of it occupying a “flat” region in spacetime. This is because he showed us the increase in the energy density caused by mass results in the “surface” of spacetime to be curved. Therefore, one can assume a mass moving at a constant velocity MUST be moving through “flat” region of it whose energy level is constant because if it was not, it would be accelerated.
Yet this also allows one to define relative motion in terms of the different energy levels they occupy in spacetime. For example, Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 that defines the equivalence
between mass and energy tells us the magnitude of them would be directly related to mass. In other words, a large mass that is not in relative motion with respect to smaller one would occupy a higher energy level.
However, if they were in relative motion one would have to add the energy associated with its motion to determine their relative energy levels. Putting it another, way the difference between the energy levels of two objects in motion would not only be related to their mass but also to their relative velocities. Therefore, according to Einstein relative motion occurs when the difference between their energy levels in spacetime exceeds what is associated with their masses. Additionally, it tells us to change motion of mass one must also change its energy level.
(The reason all motion is relative is because as was just shown Einstein defined it only in terms of the difference in the energy level between masses in spacetime.)
This conclusion is supported by the fact that Einstein derived the force of gravity in terms of a change in the energy levels occupied by a mass as it moves along a curvature in the “surface” of spacetime.
This provides an explanation of the resistance, force, or energy required to change the motion of a mass that is consistent with Einstein definition of gravity because as was mentioned earlier the change in motion or acceleration of objects in a gravitational field is a result of them moving through different energy level in spacetime. This suggests the resistance or force required to overcome the resistance or a change in motion of a mass is a result of the energy required to change the energy level it is occupying in space time.
This means that one may not have to as some have suggested “invent new theoretical components” to define mass and its resistance a change in its state of motion because as was shown above Einstein equation E=mc^2 defines its physicality in terms of the energy density of spacetime while he showed that one can derive its resistance to a change in motion in terms of the force required to change the energy level it occupies in spacetime.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2021
The Road to Unifying 


The post Einstein’s explanation of mass and why it is resistance to a change in motion. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Quantum entanglement CAN tell us why the universe is what it is. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>This is because it is one of the central principles of quantum physics. In short it assumes two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum. This connection persists even if you move one of the entangled objects far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.
However, it contradicts the central core Einstein’s theory of Relativity which states that no information can be transmitted instantaneously or faster than the speed of light.
Since these two concepts are diametrically opposite, if one can define the mechanism responsible for entanglement in terms of either one it would invalidate the other will help us to understand why our universe is what it is.
This is because there is irrefutable experimental evidence the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of photons instantaneously affect the other even though they are physically separated from each other.
As was mentioned earlier quantum physics, assumes ALL entangled particles, not only photons remain connected so that actions performed on one immediately affect the other, even when separated by great distances.
While Einstein tells us that instantaneous or faster than light communication between to particles is impossible. However, he also told us the distance between two objects or points in space is defined by their relative motion and that there is no preferred reference frame by which one can define that distance.
Therefore, he tells the distance between the observational points in a laboratory, can also be defined from the perspective of the photons moving at the speed of light.
Yet, his formula for length contraction (shown below) tells us the separation between those observational points from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light would be ZERO no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in that laboratory. This is because, as was just mentioned according to the concepts of Relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.
Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled no matter how far they may appear to be someone who is looking at them. Additionally, it also tells us information exchange between two entangle photons does not travel faster than the speed of light because from their perspective the distance between the observation points where information was read is zero.
In other words, entanglement of photons can be explained and predicted terms of the relativistic properties of spacetime as defined by Einstein as well as by quantum mechanics.
HOWEVER, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER ONE OF THE CORE PRINCIPALS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS IS THAT ALL PARTICLES SHARE ON A QUANTUM LEVEL ONE OR MORE PROPERTIES SUCH AS SPIN POLARIZATION OR MOMENTUM.
This gives us a way of experimentally determining which of these two theories define why entanglement occurs because if it is found that some particles that are NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement it would validate one of the core principals of quantum mechanics and invalidate Relativities assumption that information cannot be exchange instantaneously or faster that the speed of light.
However, one MUST ALSO use another core principle of quantum mechanics defined by De Broglie that particle are made up wave with a wavelength defined by ? = h/p to determine if it or Einstein’s theories define how the universe works. This is because it tells us all material particles have an extended volume equal to there wavelength
Yet because ALL particles have an extended volume equal to their wavelength there will be an overlap or entanglement if the distance separating them is less than their volume as defined by De Broglie.
This tells us some particles moving slower than the speed of light CAN BE entangled if the relativistic distance between the observation points from the perspective of the particles is less than their extended volume is because from their perspective they are in physical contact.
This means that both relativity and quantum mechanics tell us that all particles CAN be entangled if the distance between the end points of the measurements of their shared properties is less than their wavelength or volume as defined by De Broglie.
However, this gives us a way to DEFINITIVELY determine which one of these theories defines the reason for entanglement because we can precisely define the wavelength and therefore the volume of a particle by, as mentioned earlier using De Broglie formula ? = h/p while one can determine the relative distance between the observation points from the perspective of the particles being observed by using Einstein formula for length contraction. If it is found entanglement DOES NOT occur if that distance is greater than a particles volume then it would invalidate the core principles of quantum mechanics that two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum no matter how far they are separated. However, if it is found that entanglement does occur even if the separation was greater than their volume it would invalidate the core principals of relativity that no information can be transferred faster that the speed of light.
In other words, it gives us a doable experimental that will UNEQUIVOCALLY tell us if Quantum Mechanics or Einstein’s’ theories define why the universe is what it is
IT CANNOT GET MUCH SIMPLER THAN THAT.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Apr. 2021
The Road to Unifying 


The post Quantum entanglement CAN tell us why the universe is what it is. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Finally a way to determine if Quantum Mechanics or Relativity rules the universe. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>However it also allows one to understand the physical connection between quantum mechanics and the spacetime universe of Einstein.
The double slit experiment is made up of “A coherent source of photons illuminating a screen after passing through a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as discrete particles, called photons.
When only one slit is open, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern however, when both slits are open, the pattern is similar but with much more detailed. These facts were elucidated by Thomas Young in a paper entitled “Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics,” published in 1803. To a very high degree of success, these results could be explained by the method of Huygens–Fresnel principle that is based on the hypothesis that light consists of waves propagated through some medium. However, discovery of the photoelectric effect made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account.
It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through, the interference pattern no longer forms and it yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, without interference. However, there ways to determine which slit a photon passed through in which the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out. For instance, by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out.
However the most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time impacts a barrier with two opened slits because an interference pattern forms which is similar to what it was when multiple photons were impacting the barrier. This is a clear implication the particle called a photon has a wave component, which simultaneously passes through both slits and interferes with itself. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)”
As was mentioned earlier, one can understand this experiment in term of the physical properties of spacetime and Relatively because they tell us wave energy moves continuously through space and time time unless it is prevented from by moving through time by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to threedimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This means the particle quantum mechanic calls a photon would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength associated with its standing wave.
(Note the boundaries or “walls” of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through time therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave. Putting it another way wave itself defines its boundaries because if it cannot move though time it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave.)
As was mentioned earlier one can use the above to demonstrate the physical connection between quantum mechanics and the spacetime universe of Einstein.
Briefly it shows the reason why the interference pattern remains when one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open or “the most baffling part of this experiment” is because, as mentioned earlier it is made up of a standing wave therefore it occupies an extended volume which is directly related to its wavelength.
This means a portion of its energy could simultaneously pass both slits, if the diameter of its volume exceeds the separation of the slits and recombine on the other side to generate an interference pattern. This would occur because wave energy is allowed to move freely through time.
However, when its energy is prevented from moving through time by contacting the screen its energy will be will confined to threedimensional space causing it to be concentrated in a standing wave that as mentioned earlier would define the particle properties of a photon.
Additionally because the energy of the standing wave which earlier was shown to define a photon is dependent on its frequency the energy of the particle created when it contacts the screen must have the same energy. Therefore, were it appears on the screen will be determined by where the interference of the wave properties from each slit combine to produce enough energy to support the standing wave associated with its particle properties.
It also explains why the interference pattern disappears, in most cases when a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through is because the energy required to measure which one of slits it passes through interacts with it causing the wavelength of the one being measured to change so that it will not have the same resonant characteristics as one that passed through the other slit. Therefore, the energy passing thought that slit will not be able to interact, in most cases with the energy passing through the other one to form an interference pattern on the screen.
However it also explains why, as was mentioned “there are ways to determine which slit a photon passed through that will cause a change in the interference pattern but will not completely wiped it out.
The fact that the interference pattern can still occur even if a measurement is made is because if the energy passing through one of the two slits is altered by a relatively small amount compared to what it originally was, classical wave mechanics tells us it will be able to interact to form a slightly different resonant system with a slightly different interference pattern on the other side than would be the case if no measurement was taken.
However, this also means one SHOULD be able to use the science of wave mechanics and the physical properties of spacetime to quantify the maximum amount of energy a measuring device can remove from the wave while passing through a slit that will permit the interference pattern although somewhat altered to be reestablished on the other side.
This provides an EXPERIMENTAL WAY of determining if the results of the Thompson’s double slit experiment are due to physical properties of spacetime or the quantum properties of the wave function
because if the pattern disappears above that value and reappears below it would SUGGEST the above explanation is valid. If not it would SUGGEST the quantum mechanical one is.
The post Finally a way to determine if Quantum Mechanics or Relativity rules the universe. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Merging the collapse of the wave function with Einstein’s Theories appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Aatish definition of quantum mechanics demonstrates one of the difficulties in merging quantum mechanics with Einstein’s Relativistic Theories is explaining how and why the act of observing or interacting with the mathematical properties of a quantum environment it to “COLLAPSES” in the form of a particle.
Therefore, one requirement for merging it with Relativity would be to explain how and why observing it transforms its mathematical properties to a physical one of a particle.
One way of doing this is to use the fact that both their evolutions are controlled by a wave. For example, Relativity defines it in terms of the energy propagated by electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function.
This suggests the wave function that governs the evolution of a quantum environment may be mathematical representation of the electromagnetic wave that governs the creation of particles in the universe of Relativity. This means we may be able understand the “COLLAPSE” of the wave function and why Don’t look: waves. Look: particles describe quantum reality by looking at how an electromagnetic wave evolves in the spacetime environment of Relativity
For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relatively tells us wave energy would move continuously through spacetime unless it is prevented from by moving through time by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to threedimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the threedimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in threedimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.
The boundaries or “walls” of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through time therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave. The wave itself defines its boundaries because if it cannot move though time it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave.
In other words, this shows one can use the established science of wave mechanics and physical world of Relativity to show why when some looks at a quantum existence it appears as a particle because that act creates boundaries required to create the resonant system which defines one.
This also shows how one can explain the COLLAPSE of the wave function and why Don’t look: waves. Look: particles” describes the quantum world in terms of the evolution of electromagnetic wave in the spacetime environment of Relativity.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Mar. 2021
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The post Merging the collapse of the wave function with Einstein’s Theories appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Why a singularity cannot not exist exist in a black hole. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>This is because as mass or energy is added to it the curvature defining its gravitational geodesic in space time expands adding another layer to it. However that does not mean that the matter or energy that is under that layer is free to move towards its center because the gravitational curvature in the geodesic that defines it movement is still there but at a lower gravitational potential. This means any matter or energy that exits at a layer under the event horizon could NOT move towards its center to form a singularity but can only move around the circular geodesic generated by the gravitational potential at that level. However, Einstein’s math tells us would take infinite amount of time to cross to a lower gravitational level. This is similar to the observations involving how matter and energy that tell us it take an infinite amount of time for it move through an event horizon from outside of black hole.
This tells us that either we have misinterpreted the math that tells us that a singular 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 a one. However, that does not mean that it collapses to a singularity. The total energy and therefore the total gravitational potential of the volume of space our solar system occupies consists of the mass and energy of the sun and the planets which are orbiting it. This observation suggests that the total mass in the volume of space occupied by a black hole maybe made up of the components of neutron star and the mass that as was show above would be orbiting it on the gravitational geodesic created by it. These observations of our solar system suggest that the central core of a black hole is NOT a singularity but the remnants of neutron star whose gravitational potential has been increase enough by the mass and energy that is orbiting in the gravitational geodesic created by it to form one.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Mar. 2021
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The post Why a singularity cannot not exist exist in a black hole. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Articles posted in 2021 appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Preface
The purpose of this blog is to elaborate on the theoretical ideas contained in its companion book “The Reality of Four Spatial Dimensions”
in Thomas S. Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” he documents the doubts that precipitate a paradigm change in scientific thought.
For example, even though one could still make accurate predictions of planetary motions using the 15 century geocentric models it became increasing more difficult to integrate that concept with the more accurate observational data provided by the new technologies of that day. This resulted in some scientists questioning their validity.
He suggests the doubt generated by its persistent inability of to explain new data lead many scientists of that period to adopt the simpler rules of the revolutionary heliocentric model.
Modern physics appears to be on the verge of a similar revolution because the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy are extremely difficult to integrate into its current theoretical models.
As Thomas S. Kuhn points out failure of an existing paradigm is a prelude to the search for a new one.
It continues the search, began in its companion book the “The Reality of Four Spatial Dimensions” to not only explain how one can seamlessly integrate the observations of dark matter and dark energy into a theoretical model based on the existence of four *spatial* dimensions but to provide a unifying mechanism responsible for the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak, and strong) governing the interactions of matter, energy, space, and time.
Each article covers one aspect of a search for the “reality” it defines. For example, the article “What is dark energy” defines its casually in terms of an interaction of threedimensional space with a fourth while others derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of a resonant system formed by a matter wave on a “surface” of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
It is not meant to verify the many answers found in the book “The Reality of Four Spatial Dimensions”. Instead it is meant to give the scientific community the specific information and experiment techniques required to either verify or falsify it contents. It relies less on mathematics and more on conceptual logic and thought experiments (much like Albert Einstein did) to show how one can explain and predict all modern observations by extrapolating the rules defining classical threedimensional space to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
“The universe’s most powerful enabling tool is not knowledge or understanding but imagination because it extends the reality of one’s environment.”
Topic 
Date posted 
catorgory 
Author 
Quantum Tunneling in space time  June 15, 2021  Theoretical  Jeff 
How should we define reality?  June 1, 2021  Theoretical  Jeff 
Is Gravitational time dilation responsible for Dark Energy  May 15, 2021  Theoretical  Jeff 
Einstein’s explanation of mass and why it is resistance to a change in motion 
May 1, 2021 
Jeff 

Apr. 15, 2021 
Jeff 

Apr. 1, 2021 
Jeff 

Merging the collapse of the wave function with Einstein Theories of Relativity 
Mar. 12, 2021 
Jeff 

Mar. 6, 2021 
Jeff 

Could Black holes be responsible for the expansion period in our universe’s history? 
Jan.1,2021 
Jeff 
Articles posted in 2020, 2019, 2017 and 18, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The post Articles posted in 2021 appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>The post Could Black holes be responsible for the expansion period in our universe’s history? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>Some will probably say that is it crazy to assume that a black hole can explode however I think it is crazier to assume that the explosion of a single onedimensional point called a singularity can result in the observables properties of our universe.
One advantage to basing an inflationary model on the explosions of black holes is that it defines a mechanism for the start of the inflationary period in terms of an observable properties of our universe. Additionally, one can, through observations estimate the total energy content of all of the black holes in universe AT THE TIME OF ITS COLLAPSE based on how many presently exist. This would allow one to estimate the rate of the universe’s inflationary expansion caused by a rapid release of their energy.
To determine if this IDEA is viable solution one would have to first determine if heat can cause a black hole to explode. If it can one could use their observable properties to mathematically quantify the temperature required for that to occur. We can also estimate the maximum temperature the complete collapse of the universe would attain. If that value is greater than the temperature required to cause a black hole to explode it would add creditability to the above IDEA. After that it should be possible to determine rate at which the energy of the explosion of a single black hole will ripple through rest and cause them to explode. Since, as was mentioned earlier because we can estimate, based on observations the total energy of all of the black holes in our observable universe AT THE TIME OF ITS COLLAPSE we mathematically determine rate at which energy is released and therefore the rate of the universe’s expansion at each point in its evolution.
In other words, it allows us to define an inflationary period in our universe’s evolution based on the mathematical analysis of the observable properties of our environment instead of the unobservable properties of a quantum singularity.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan Jan. 2021
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The Road to Unifying 
The post Could Black holes be responsible for the expansion period in our universe’s history? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
]]>