The Cosmological Quantum Field and dark energy

Xelasnave.1947 said:
Thank you.
I may be trying to seek something from your idea that is not there.
Not your fault.
Alex
Click to expand...

You, IMO, seem to be perplexed by the use of word stretch, I will take that later in new post but meanwhile, pl see below another extract..

"Before we proceed we must cross the bar and explain the null result of Michelson Morley Experiment [1]. They were expecting presence of relative motion between the Earth and the ether, presuming ether as matter. But the cosmological quantum field is not matter and no ether wind or cosmological quantum field wind exists. The gravity is the direct detection of presence of stretched cosmological quantum field. Only when the stretching is beyond certain critical point, the matter forms, thus the cosmological quantum field stretched below this critical point can only be observed manifesting itself as gravity."
 
karenmansker said:
I would respectfully submit the possibility that your CQF is subquantum/subplanckian in nature . . . . . . IMO, getting closer!! HSIRI
Click to expand...

Not conceptually. Once we talk of planckian or quantum, we attempt to associate a particulate nature to the subject. CQF is not matter, not made up of matter, it is the progenitor state of matter / radiation, only when it is stretched beyond certain point matter forms. Likewise when a stretched CQF relaxes radiation is produced.
 
Alex,

Reference to Big Bang Cosmology will tell you that universe is expanding or stretching.
Both these words 'expanding' and 'stretching' can give different meaning. For example take an urban cluster, build more buildings on the outskirts and the city has expanded (no stretch), on the other hand take a rubber band stretch it, it has expanded as well as stretched.

What is BB's expansion and stretch, is it like addition of new buildings or is it like rubber band stretch or something else? When we observe redshifts, the prevalent explanation suggests that it is kind of rubber band stretch (increase of intervening space).

In the proposed idea say space or CQF or nothingness was infinitely spread in rest state. No particle, no motion, no change, no observer and nothing to observe. Under such circumstances it is not incomprehensible that time was non existent till something happened and this CQF started lumping (could be at multiple places), this lumping caused stretching in CQF.

The idea is in total contrast with origin from a BB singularity. Some discomfort with the BB singularity which this proposal eliminates

1. Singularity was very densed, obviously made up of matter. It does not explain formation of matter as such. It proposes (in my understanding) that matter was already there compressed in this singularity.

2. Huge temperature and pressure was present at that time. Where did temperature and pressure come from? Singularity could have had any mass, but at the end of the day it was a point (not grainy), so again (in my understanding) assigning any thermodynamic property like temperature to a single point like entity (with no space to move around) is too much of an assumption.

3. We still do not know why should it come out of singular state. Well it is hypothesized as spacetime singularity, but you know temperature / density / pressure is associated with it. It is taking for granted that all three properties existed at t = 0+.

4. And then we have almost impossible natured expansion, called inflation. Associated Physics of inflation is an issue even today in mainstream. No doubt it resolves certain issues around original BB hypo.

5. And then we have quark gluon plazma, as stated earlier it assumes presence of matter.


To Continue.
 
Continue..

So when I can list out 5 issues associated with hugely established BB cosmology, then the reactions could be that either I do not know what is BB cosmology (less rude than saying "Fuck off') or I can be asked that whatever alternative I propose should have lesser (or no) issues, and should be able to explain all the observations and should be able to make verifiable predictions too.

It does.
 
List of Observations which this proposal can explain, in simple terms,

1. Origin of Matter.
2. Origin of Radiation.
3. Asymptotic Freedom and strong Interaction.
4. Unstable larger Nucle us
5. Vacuum Fluctuation
6. Red Shifts.
7. CMB
8. Non existence of BB Singualrity
9. Gravitational Time Dilation.
10. Super Nova Explosion Process
11. Upper Limit on the Neutron Star Mass.
12. Relativistic Jets.
13. Eliminates DM.
14. Eliminates DE.
15. Eliminates the super luminal expansion, yet explaining the observation.

And probably angular momentum of a particle (I came across a highly charged thread on this), no intrinsic property is required to be assigned to a particle (required as per prevalent explanation), angular momentum could be due to unbalanced stretch around (presence of other objects/particles) at the time of formation of particle. I am working on this aspect.
 
RajeshTrivedi said:
e. I am working on this aspect.
Click to expand...
Good for you Rajesh but be prepared for critism, no doubt you are, but you deserve praise for trying.

You did very well at cosmoquest I felt to get as far as you did I don't think anyone can win there...you did have a run there or did I dream that?

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Good for you Rajesh but be prepared for critism, no doubt you are, but you deserve praise for trying.

You did very well at cosmoquest I felt to get as far as you did I don't think anyone can win there...you did have a run there or did I dream that?

Alex
Click to expand...

At cosmoquest, the start was with non existence of BH singularity due to conversion of mass into energy at Neutron Star level. I worked it out based on prevalent notion of Asymptotic Freedom. One of the member suggested that I should not claim that Asymptotic Freedom would ensure release of energy on compaction of Neutrons (quarks forced closer by gravity) and I should hypothesize differently. That appeared to be a good point and I generalized my concept which even explains the reverse nature of Asymptotic Freedom, thus goes a step ahead.

This new concept was CQF and stretching, which was vehemently opposed for want of maths (now it has more than that but still much more is required), it was further opposed on CMB, which it explains nicely. It was further opposed on DM, which it again explains nicely.

To me it appears that this stretching thing still remains un-understood. It instantly takes people to stretching of space (kind of expansion), but this stretching is kind of creating more tension keeping the distance same. For example take two spheres, fix them at two locations and tie them with unbreakable elastic material, now rotate the spheres (one or both, without changing position) in such a way that this elastic material gets wrapped on them. The mass of sphere would increase (due to further wrapping) and stretch in the elastic material would increase. There is no increase in distance between the spheres. Stretching beyond a critical point will produce particles and relaxation in stretching would produce radiation.

The great part is this idea explains almost all the observations consistently, its the matter of time that will be looked into. My next part is to cover origin of electrical charge. That will cover it all.
 
RajeshTrivedi said:
To me it appears that this stretching thing still remains un-understood. It instantly takes people to stretching of space (kind of expansion), but this stretching is kind of creating more tension keeping the distance same. For example take two spheres, fix them at two locations and tie them with unbreakable elastic material, now rotate the spheres (one or both, without changing position) in such a way that this elastic material gets wrapped on them. The mass of sphere would increase (due to further wrapping) and stretch in the elastic material would increase. There is no increase in distance between the spheres. Stretching beyond a critical point will produce particles and relaxation in stretching would produce radiation.
Click to expand...

This part if extended can make Dark Energy Redundant.

The increase in sphere mass in above crude example caused higher stretching in the intervening CQF without the increase in the distance between the tw0.

The 1998 observation of increased redshift can be explained under this premises. It is also a mainstream observation that the cluster mass increased significantly when this accelerated expansion supposedly started. So increase in red shift is due to increase in the cluster mass too, explanation of this observation does not require accelerated expansion of intervening space. So no DE is required.
 
On the DM

If this idea is probable then we will never find DM. The answer is simple, DM is not in particulate form. The mainstream conceptual idea of need for additional mass is fine, we could not find the mass so it became dark matter, but I have changed it a bit, there is a need to identify the additional source of gravitational influence, which may not be the mass/matter, and it is not. The stretched CQF contributes to the gravity as per Eq#2 in my post #10, the CQF is not mass/matter, its a progenitor state of matter/radiation which manifests as gravity. This makes the need for such non intuitive idea, that DM interacts only gravitationally not EM way, absolutely redundant while explaining the observation.
 
Further on DM

1. The Gravitational effective Mass of our Milky Way Galaxy (as seen from outside, say from Andromeda) is much more than the sum total of all the objects. Each and every cubic angstrom has non zero (may be very small) stretched energy which contributes to the Gravity. Not only the outer periphery stars (of our MW) but satellite Galaxies of our MW must be orbiting faster than calculated value from just the baryonic mass of MW.

2. If we measure the mass of Sun based on Earth orbital motion and based on Saturn orbital motion, then the mass as calculated from Saturn orbital motion will come out to be more as compared to what we calculate based on earth orbital motion. As on date I cannot comment on the quantum of difference. If this precise data is available at any given instance then we can calculate the average stretch energy density in our solar system.
 
I remain interested.
I spent years coming up with essentially what is termed push gravity, every day I would post something on an astronomy forum to which I belonged.
I did not know anything about science other than from high school, and did not know about SR or GR.
After five years someone pointed out that Le Sage had presented the idea of push gravity in 1745.
So I will be sympathetic to anyone who is trying to solve the riddle.
I wish I could be of more help but at least I can offer you respect for thinking about these things.
I have never liked the idea of dark matter but understand why it has support.
My belief there is no such force as attraction and gravity is manifested by what I loosely call an external pressure and that somehow GR should not find necessity for dark matter.
But belief is not science so I had the good sence to present my thoughts as ideas and never as a theory.
And this approach had folk helping me rather than calling me a crack pot...not that doing so would worry me.
I think push gravity or the thought of an ether threatens SR because it is taken that there could be just one reference frame.
.more to come but I have to go now.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I remain interested.
I spent years coming up with essentially what is termed push gravity, every day I would post something on an astronomy forum to which I belonged.
I did not know anything about science other than from high school, and did not know about SR or GR.
After five years someone pointed out that Le Sage had presented the idea of push gravity in 1745.
So I will be sympathetic to anyone who is trying to solve the riddle.
I wish I could be of more help but at least I can offer you respect for thinking about these things.
I have never liked the idea of dark matter but understand why it has support.
My belief there is no such force as attraction and gravity is manifested by what I loosely call an external pressure and that somehow GR should not find necessity for dark matter.
But belief is not science so I had the good sence to present my thoughts as ideas and never as a theory.
And this approach had folk helping me rather than calling me a crack pot...not that doing so would worry me.
I think push gravity or the thought of an ether threatens SR because it is taken that there could be just one reference frame.
.more to come but I have to go now.
Alex
Click to expand...

Pl see the attached file. This associates the value of stretch to G in a very simplistic manner, and appears quite intuitive too. For quarks the energy density is of the order of 10^35 thus G value is very high and for Hydrogen atom onwards the density falls steeply to the order of 10^20, thus having prevalent G value from Hydrogen atom to around Earth to Moon to Sun etc.
 

Attachments

  • Stretch Vs G.pdf
    26.5 KB · Views: 3
To highlight further the plausibility of this idea, we take 3-4 more observations:

1.1 Strong Nuclear Force

The prevalent theory considers the nuclear force as the residual effect of more fundamental strong interaction between quarks. It is proposed that the nuclear force is gravity only, but since the stretching is lesser as compared to what is present between quark–quark, the gravitational constant is comparatively less, even though much higher than the prevalent value.

As more and more protons/neutrons come together and form the larger nucleus, the stretching around for new proton bonding becomes lesser and lesser due to reduction in density, thus a stage comes when it is no longer possible to sustain the increased repulsion of newly added proton limiting the stable nucleus size. This also explains the inherent instability of larger nucleus.

1.2 Why electrons do not feel strong force if it is Gravity

It is apparent from Table – 1 that the stretching of space between a nucleus and electron is much less as compared to what is present between quark–quark, the hydrogen atom like structure itself has normal and prevalent G value, thus electrons in the orbit do not feel any extra ordinary gravitational influence.

1.3 Proton Radius reduction Puzzle

The known radius of a proton is0.88±0.01 fm, in 2010 Pohl et al [3] conducted an experiment in order to refine this measurement and obtain a more precise radius. Their study involved forming Muonic Hydrogen by replacing the electron in the atom with aMuon. This was done because the much higher mass of a Muon causes it to orbit much closer than an electron to the hydrogen nucleus (a single proton), where it is consequently much more sensitive to the size of the proton. The resulting radius was recorded as0.842±0.001 fm. The newly measured radius is 4% smaller than the prior measurements, which were expected to be accurate within 1%.

This reduction in proton radius can be explained under this theory. Muon mass is higher than the electron mass and orbital radius is also less, thus there will be higher stretching between proton and Muon, consequently higher value of G, a higher value of G around the proton space, would compact it, thus reducing the radius.
 
Some not so apparent predictions / observations under this idea..

1. Presence of certain unexpected torque / axis realignment of celestial objects, especially compact objects.
2. Different red-shift values for objects of vastly different masses but at the same distance.
3. Intrinsic angular momentum (spin) under QM is actually classical spin only, its caused due to differential stretch surrounding a particle during its formation.
4. A free electron / electron in an atom may have different spins. A captured electron may be realigned after capture.
5. Presence of Gravito-magnetic components.
 
One of the unsolved problem of the physics is: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_alignment_of_CMB_anisotropy)


Extract from the wiki link.,

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."

This problem gets resolved in this theory. The CMBR is nothing but emission/creation of radiation due to relaxation in the stretched CQF. It has to be aligned with the shape (and motion profile; central to sun in the case of earth) of the object around which CMBR is recorded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top