The Cosmological Quantum Field and dark energy

[RajeshTrivedi]

It is not a fudge factor as such, it is one of the controversial explanation of red shifts observations which keeps Big bang and GR intact.

I have proposed an alternative which very elegantly resolves the issue around Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It explains all the cosmological observations but rules out BB and GR, thus will be extremely difficult to push.

I am extracting a part of my work on the context as below.

1.1 Cosmological Red Shifts

In General Relativity the cosmological red-shifts are explained as stretching of space-time [4] due to its expansion. The objects farther away are recorded with higher redshifts, thus concluding that farther the object, higher the recession velocity. This conclusion on extrapolation gives rise to super-luminal recession velocities of the galaxies/objects, causing some intuitive discomfort. Under the proposed theory, the higher redshift is caused due to higher total stretching of the Cosmological Quantum Field (CQF) between the source (distant galaxy) and the observer (Earth). Since the total stretching of the CQF between two objects is directly proportional to the distance between the two, the farther the source object, higher would be the redshift.

This theory looks at the higher redshift from a different approach, and does not agree with the prevalent notion of expansion or accelerated expansion of the universe, thus doing away with the notion of Dark Energy as well.

The accelerated expansion aspect can be attributed to increase in cluster mass as the universe aged, since the increase in mass is due to clumping of intervening CQF thus causing an increased total stretch in situ.

***
The abstract of the paper is also given below, which will clarify about CQF, this aspect is sufficient to explain everything from strong interaction to cosmological redshifts to quasar to relativistic jets. This can explain the instability of larger nucleus to vacuum fluctuations to non existence of Black Holes Singularity. This can also explain the proton mass conundrum to the peculiarity of Asymptotic freedom (the bond weakens on reducing the gap and strengthens on gap increase). This can also explain the Supernova explosion in a superior manner than the prevalent Neutrino Heating mechanism which is quite controversial.

Abstract: It is proposed that the Gravity, Photonic Radiation and Matter originated from Cosmological Quantum Field. The cosmological quantum field is proposed to have a peculiar property, it manifests only when it is stretched, and this stretching is gravity. The value of the Gravitational Constant is variable and depends on the value of this stretching. The relaxation of stretched cosmological quantum field creates photonic radiation and stretching beyond a certain point produces matter.

 

[origin]

It is not a fudge factor as such, it is one of the controversial explanation of red shifts observations which keeps Big bang and GR intact.

I have proposed an alternative which very elegantly resolves the issue around Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It explains all the cosmological observations but rules out BB and GR, thus will be extremely difficult to push.

I am extracting a part of my work on the context as below.

1.1 Cosmological Red Shifts

In General Relativity the cosmological red-shifts are explained as stretching of space-time [4] due to its expansion. The objects farther away are recorded with higher redshifts, thus concluding that farther the object, higher the recession velocity. This conclusion on extrapolation gives rise to super-luminal recession velocities of the galaxies/objects, causing some intuitive discomfort. Under the proposed theory, the higher redshift is caused due to higher total stretching of the Cosmological Quantum Field (CQF) between the source (distant galaxy) and the observer (Earth). Since the total stretching of the CQF between two objects is directly proportional to the distance between the two, the farther the source object, higher would be the redshift.

This theory looks at the higher redshift from a different approach, and does not agree with the prevalent notion of expansion or accelerated expansion of the universe, thus doing away with the notion of Dark Energy as well.

The accelerated expansion aspect can be attributed to increase in cluster mass as the universe aged, since the increase in mass is due to clumping of intervening CQF thus causing an increased total stretch in situ.

***
The abstract of the paper is also given below, which will clarify about CQF, this aspect is sufficient to explain everything from strong interaction to cosmological redshifts to quasar to relativistic jets. This can explain the instability of larger nucleus to vacuum fluctuations to non existence of Black Holes Singularity. This can also explain the proton mass conundrum to the peculiarity of Asymptotic freedom (the bond weakens on reducing the gap and strengthens on gap increase). This can also explain the Supernova explosion in a superior manner than the prevalent Neutrino Heating mechanism which is quite controversial.

Abstract: It is proposed that the Gravity, Photonic Radiation and Matter originated from Cosmological Quantum Field. The cosmological quantum field is proposed to have a peculiar property, it manifests only when it is stretched, and this stretching is gravity. The value of the Gravitational Constant is variable and depends on the value of this stretching. The relaxation of stretched cosmological quantum field creates photonic radiation and stretching beyond a certain point produces matter.

This is simply unevidenced speculation which only confuses the issue and it certainly appears to me that it should be in pseudoscience or alternative theories. I have notified the mods so they can move it if they wish.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

This is simply unevidenced speculation which only confuses the issue and it certainly appears to me that it should be in pseudoscience or alternative theories. I have notified the mods so they can move it if they wish.

fair enough.
An hypothesis or speculation or model will always be un-evidenced. What is evidenced is observation.
The observation is cosmological redshifts, which is established and evidenced.
Dark Energy based model attempts to explain it but we have not found any evidence of dark energy as yet.
On the similar footing the observed galaxy rotation curves can be explained by invoking dark matter, but we have not found any evidence of dark matter.

Now coming to what is to be discussed in science section and what is not to be discussed. One means is that some knowledgeable person will come forward, give a link or two and establish the mainstream position. Since the concept is surely fluid even in mainstream, few posters may remain skeptical and thread may die down. Other means is that prevalent explanation has not crossed the bar of some very high level of acceptance so there is no harm in discussing certain alternatives. The prevalent notion talks of stretching of spacetime (maths) while the proposed mechanism talks of stretching of space/CQF (semantics apart). I see no harm in discussing alternatives for such fluid topics in mains science section, as long as these alternatives are plausible.

 

[timojin]

fair enough.
An hypothesis or speculation or model will always be un-evidenced. What is evidenced is observation.
The observation is cosmological redshifts, which is established and evidenced.
Dark Energy based model attempts to explain it but we have not found any evidence of dark energy as yet.
On the similar footing the observed galaxy rotation curves can be explained by invoking dark matter, but we have not found any evidence of dark matter.

Now coming to what is to be discussed in science section and what is not to be discussed. One means is that some knowledgeable person will come forward, give a link or two and establish the mainstream position. Since the concept is surely fluid even in mainstream, few posters may remain skeptical and thread may die down. Other means is that prevalent explanation has not crossed the bar of some very high level of acceptance so there is no harm in discussing certain alternatives. The prevalent notion talks of stretching of spacetime (maths) while the proposed mechanism talks of stretching of space/CQF (semantics apart). I see no harm in discussing alternatives for such fluid topics in mains science section, as long as these alternatives are plausible.

You just don't listen to his comment. this is a science forum and comments relevant to the post are welcome ,
every one input is welcome

 

[DaveC426913]

You just don't listen to his comment. this is a science forum and comments relevant to the post are welcome ,
every one input is welcome

That's not entirely your call. Others will be reading this, expecting a science answer (this subforum is a hard science forum, not alt theories or pseudoscience.)
But if you'd like to open it up to alt theories, I'm sure the mods will be happy to move it to the appropriate forum.

 

[James R]

Mod note: This thread has been split from the thread "Is dark energy a fudge factor?", as it proposes an "alternative theory".

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alternative theories are rarely "theories" in my understanding of what makes up a scientific theory.

They tend to be ideas or speculation and so long as we look at them this way we should be able to avoid upset that a presenter of an idea is offering a formatible alternative theory.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

On the similar footing the observed galaxy rotation curves can be explained by invoking dark matter, but we have not found any evidence of dark matter.

Under the current model the rotation curves are indeed evidence of dark matter.
In other words the rotation curves suggest that assuming our current model of gravity is reliable there must be matter that we can not see or detect.
Although I will be branded a rat bag, which may be not far from the truth, I believe there may be something we miss in the way we apply the model such that it will turn out there is indeed no dark matter.

But certainly trying to find dark matter will do one of two things.
We will either determine it is indeed there as predicted by our model and we may get to explain its nature and make up...or in the effort to nail it down we find our current model needs a tweak when applied to a galaxy.

We need to work out how gravity works in my view.
GR sees a bending of space but I wonder what happens at a particle level which I suppose is what scientists would call the quantum level.

Because GR works so well I think that if you talk about anything that may improve upon it one will be met with all the reasons why GR works so well..that is understandable but to me it would seem that until we can work out the interactions at a particle level we will be stuck at a point not really past Newtons approach, which is incredibly appropriate and efficient for our current needs to plan the paths etc for our space craft.

GR treats gravity as if it is not a force and the model works without a force but is it unrealistic to believe gravity is not a force, a flow of particles or an interactions of particles, and until we accept that proposition and if we develop a model that recognises force and particle interaction we will remain unable to move our understanding past Newton (who certainly saw gravity as a force...as he once said. Gravity is the force of God...so I can understand why GR was happy to move away from the idea of force.

I personally think we should revisit the basic concept behind push gravity upon which approach we could should would create a model with an environment where gravity would act from the outside in, a flow of space...rather than as we have with our current approach which assumes attraction operates which is from the inside out..

If gravity works from the outside in, somewhat like a form of pressure rather than attraction I doubt if we would find any reason for dark matter or indeed dark energy...



Just an idea but call me a crack pot if you like...anyway I think if we saw gravity as a flow of space or a pressure such pressure may be the reason the universe expands.



Alex

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Mod note: This thread has been split from the thread "Is dark energy a fudge factor?", as it proposes an "alternative theory".

Ok,

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Alternative theories are rarely "theories" in my understanding of what makes up a scientific theory.
o
They tend to be ideas or speculation and so long as we look at them this way we should be able to avoid upset that a presenter of an idea is offering a formatible alternative theory.

Alex

First statement of yours is quite scathing on alternative theory.

Please have a look at WIP as attached in file (part). Please let me know which observation cannot be explained by this alternative proposal. From strong interaction to instability of nucleons to possible upper limit on atomic number to redshifts to observation which requires DM to observation which requires DE to removal of singularity to removal of information paradox to supernova explosion to fluctuations. All these observations can be explained under this hypothesis.

I am looking for a guy who is expert in fluid mechanics tensor maths, I am sure a suitable more exhaustive mathematical formulation will be done sooner.


Unanswered questions of this theory.

1. Not known how CQF came........we can live with this as we do not know about where BB singularity came from.
2. Not known how the matter formation / clumping started........we can live with as well, we do not know how BB singularity got triggered.

There is no other adjustment in this hypothesis, no inflation, no DM, no DE, no singularity.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

First statement of yours is quite scathing on alternative theory.

Hi Rajesh my statement was not intended to be scathing and certainly not intended to downplay or make negative comment on your ideas.

My statement merely was to point out what is often thought to be a theory by its owner does not fit the concept of a theory in science.

You would be aware of the high requirements a scientific theory.

Moreover I was not judging anything you put forward.

It is my belief if people presenting ideas which are somewhat alternative presented them as ideas and not call them a theory it may be better received.

I hope you can understand I was not attempting criticism.

All these observations can be explained under this hypothesis.

I won't be coming forward to throw cold water on your idea any time soon because frankly it would be impertinent given that my understanding and education in cosmology is far from complete.

If anything I would be encouraging to develope your idea simply because my ignorance does not equip me to point out a flaw.

I am looking forward to see what comes from this thread.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am looking for a guy who is expert in fluid mechanics tensor maths, I am sure a suitable more exhaustive mathematical formulation will be done sooner.

I certainly am not your guy.
I have read your notes again but call me thick I do not understand how you can relate stretching to gravity.

Can I ask you to have a go at explaining it to me in a simple fashion such that a child could understand.

Alex

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Can I ask you to have a go at explaining it to me in a simple fashion such that a child could understand.

Alex

Well, that should be ideal thing about any idea / hypothesis / theory.

Your previous posts give an idea that you are conversant with the subject, so I am sure you would be able to get the concept behind what I am proposing.

Let me try in simpler terms.

Even though GR talks about spacetime, but still the concept of stretching is present. We talk of warping of spacetime, deformation of spacetime or even stretching of the same, but we never talk of any force entity in such scenario. We also talk of cosmological expansion not present where gravity is dominating. We see expansion at cosmological distances but we do not see the same in our solar system. That means some kind of force mechanics is present. The entire phenomenon does wonderful observable things like attraction, orbital motion, lensing, clumping but we do not know the cause behind the same (in GR).

So lets for time being go back to Newton, we de-link space and time and talk of space only for time being. Let us assume that at t = 0 (if at all it was there ever) there was nothing (do not misunderstand with everything from nothing concept...it may deceptively appear so), only the cosmological quantum field in its rest state (T = 0 Deg K absolute zero), no stretch, no Gravity, no temperature, no radiation, no BB singularity. Something triggers (fluctuation), either at a single place or at multiple places and the CQF starts lumping, its no more CQF, it is stretched CQF. T > 0 happens, stretch continues and beyond certain point it reaches the maximum thus producing the quarks (proposed as fundamental max stretch particle), this relaxes the stretch, thus producing the photonic radiation too.

Thats about origin.

Lets talk about strong interaction. In layman language 3 quarks are required to form a proton and a different combination of 3 quarks form Neutron. These 3 quarks at those small distance will have electrostatic repulsion force so great that gravitational attraction is insignificant to hold them. But the electrostatic force is present, so there must be some super force (of the order of 10^38 times stronger than gravity) to keep these quarks intact. Then there is one more problem, if you try to pull apart the quarks, new stream of particles gets formed, if you try to bring the quarks closer then this super duper force reduces. This observation is quite contrary to our understanding of EM bonds, so Asymptotic Freedom was brought in. In my proposal this super duper force is nothing but extreme gravity with G at its peak. It makes sense, the energy density around quarks is of the order of 10^35 units which steeply falls to 10^20 units around a Hydrogen atom and remains almost same (in the range) for Earth, Sun and Galaxy. Stretched CQF between quarks will produce particles (as per hypo) if stretched beyond a critical point, bringing quarks closer will relax the CQF stretch. Thats what is complex Asymptotic Freedom, is it not?

more after this is digested.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

more after this is digested.

Thank you Rajesh for taking the time to explain how your universe works.

I have no intention of saying it can't work that way because of this or that so you may find my approach different.
I like to look at ideas and think why they may work rather than why they won't.
Some supporters of GR seem to me to get upset that there can be anything that can improve upon GR so if one seeks, as I do, a mechanical explanation you are not well received.
GR talks about mass influencing space and telling it how to bend etc but I want to know how this is done so I welcome your effort irrespective of you being right or wrong.

As you know I am not a scientist but I can not see why we should not ask more about how and why gravity works to produce the observations we make.

Alex

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

GR talks about mass influencing space and telling it how to bend etc but I want to know how this is done so I welcome your effort irrespective of you being right or wrong.

As you know I am not a scientist but I can not see why we should not ask more about how and why gravity works to produce the observations we make.

Alex

GR talks of mass / energy influencing spacetime which is purely a mathematical entity. What I am proposing is that mass or matter which came from CQF lumping only, creates the stretch in the CQF. Of course a stretch will be accompanied by curvature too. How?

Consider an analogy. consider that a large room is filled with highly elastic mesh of thin wires with absolutely no gap present, both the ends of individual wire are tied to the distant walls. Wires are fully unstretched, in rest condition. Now by any mechanism let us say the central part of the mesh starts lumping, this lumping will happen from the mass/energy supplied by the wires only, so the wires would stretch, all the wires radial too this lump (say spherical) will show the stretch, and all other wires will show deformation (warping). Whatever is the energy equivalent of the lump comes from the wire mesh only.

Now think of CQF as wire mesh, but it is unphysical, in a way, that it manifests only when it is stretched, and a stretch beyond certain critical value forms particles. Each energy equivalent produces some stretch in the CQF. The stretch depends on the proximity with other partciles / objects too.

This stretch is manifested as Gravity.

One more example:

Lets talk of Neutron, it is formed of one up quark and two down quarks. The total mass of these three quarks is around 12 units while the total mass of neutron is around 939 units. Where does 939-12 = 927 units come from? Please explore what is the prevalent explanation. Since what I am proposing is alternative, so I need not follow or stick to that.

Under this proposal stretch among these 3 quarks is just near its peak (stabilized through electrostatic repulsion). This 927 units missing mass (around 99%) and most of it is the CQF stretch energy. Please refer to my post #10 for stretch energy contribution to mass (Eq #2). Now a thought experiment. Magnify these 3 quarks of Neutron, you see 3 objects with total mass of 12 units but external influence is like that of 939 units, you see no 927? That is the DM equivalent in my proposal. DM is nothing but stretched energy contribution to the mass. The influence of stretch energy. It is so massive at quarks level due to very high stretch, it is substantial at cosmological level due to very high mass lump. It is not appreciable at earth level due to very low stretch, but nonetheless must be measurable. You must note that gravity between Quarks of neutron is around 10^38 times higher than what is even exerted by an Hydrogen atom. Energy density falls from 10^35 units steeply to 10^20 units as stated earlier and remains at 10^20 levels even at Sun /Earth level.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

This stretch is manifested as Gravity.

I am sorry I can not get how it does.

I am a little distracted here I will go thru your post again in the morning.

Thanks for taking time to set it out such that I should be able to follow.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Consider this please.
We are way out in space so as to eliminate as many variables as possible.
Can we imagine two masses say two pool balls...they are connected by one wire which passes through each and the wire represents one line of your field. Is it fair to say the wire is stretched toward each ball such that there is a flow toward the ball or is it opposite.
Is it the flow of the field that would cause say a smaller ball, perhaps a marble, within inches of one ball to move in its direction.
Alex

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Consider this please.
We are way out in space so as to eliminate as many variables as possible.
Can we imagine two masses say two pool balls...they are connected by one wire which passes through each and the wire represents one line of your field. Is it fair to say the wire is stretched toward each ball such that there is a flow toward the ball or is it opposite.
Is it the flow of the field that would cause say a smaller ball, perhaps a marble, within inches of one ball to move in its direction.
Alex

Its a model which is required to assess the value of G, effective gravitational influence. The equivalent energy (of matter) comes from the Cosmological Quantum Field only which is infinitely spread. The stretch is higher closer to the matter and reduces farther away. Please do not take these analogies literally, when the matter forms, the equivalent amount of energy is drawn from CQF.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Thank you.
I may be trying to seek something from your idea that is not there.
Not your fault.
Alex

 

[karenmansker]

Its a model which is required to assess the value of G, effective gravitational influence. The equivalent energy (of matter) comes from the Cosmological Quantum Field only which is infinitely spread. The stretch is higher closer to the matter and reduces farther away. Please do not take these analogies literally, when the matter forms, the equivalent amount of energy is drawn from CQF.

I would respectfully submit the possibility that your CQF is subquantum/subplanckian in nature . . . . . . IMO, getting closer!! HSIRI