A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Andrex]

Let's say I won't use any equations (I couldn't anyway). But I'm curious to find if the folowing would change something in what you have presented so far (wich I like very much); but I'm afraid it would need a different mathematic formula. Here is my point of view:

Curvature around a mass is not the complete reality

To “see” the exact situation we have to consider the nature of a black hole

From what I know, a Black hole is the maximal deformation of the geometry of a certain volume of space-time.
That deformation of the volume of space-time extends way down to its center of gravity.
Which seems to mean that the deformation in question is the result of something acting on the center of gravity itself.
And that means that de deformation is not, at all, caused by the presence of a ball of matter floating in space, like a bowling ball placed on a mattress. If you look, for example, at the M31 galaxy (Andromeda) where there is a black hole in its center, the galaxy doesn't have the form of a funnel. You can get in the Black hole from either side of the galaxy. And you certainly won’t get through and emerge on the other side.

The first consideration we must do is accept that; if it’s not the quantity of matter that deforms space-time it has to be the next best bet: the mass energy of that quantity of matter. And we can had that, the "mass energy" directs itself toward the center of gravity of that quantity of matter. To support this view, just think that the mass of a proton consist of its three internal quarks for 1% and its inner energy for 99%.

So what kind of space-time deformation are we talking about?

The only possibility is that the deformation is in the fabric of space-time itself and not at all in the fabric of matter. The reason might be that matter doesn't replace space-time; it only occupies it. The volume of matter is space-time in itself and that space doesn't disappear when matter appears.

First of all, the deformation of space-time is not in a downward direction; so the name Black "hole" is physically inappropriate. It is not a "hole". Instead, we should talk about a "Black ball"; because the circular event horizon of a Black hole doesn't represent a flat surface; it represents a volume of space-time: a "ball".

So, again, what can we say about the fabric of space-time?

We can only say that it has a metric. And, it's easy to understand that the expansion of the universe is exactly the progressive growth of that metric (Hubble's constant has a metric of one mega parsec). But what does that mean? What does it looks like?

To find out, let’s say we choose a metric (a length) of one foot (Hubble’s constant has a metric of one mega parsec). The continuous growth of that metric will result in the fact that our foot will gradually become a foot that measures 13 inches-> 14 inches -> 15 inches and so on, but will still be "a foot". That is the expansion of the metric of the universe. The whole thing started when the universe had a diameter of 10^-35 meter; and the date was: 10^-43 sec after time = zero. And the universe of that epoch is still de same universe today (plus its entropy).

So what happens if we choose one precise point of the fabric of the universe and we block the growth "movement" at that point?

I'd say that the expansion of space-time will stop for that point and a deformation will occur around it because the surroundings of the point will continue to expand.

Let’s say that we stopped the expansion of our chosen point at the moment where our metric had grown to the size of two feet. In stopping its growth, we have obtained a metric of space-time that is now "stable". That part of space-time doesn't change its metric anymore; even though the rest of the universe still expands.

That is exactly the situation in which we observe our space-time from the level of the galaxies down to the level of the atoms. We live in a volume of space-time where its metric is stabilized. That volume of stable space-time is our galaxy.

Now; let’s choose a deformation of space that is occupied by a great big star. The point "center of gravity" of that deformation is blocked like the rest of the galaxy where this star is located and the "mass energy" of the star is what stabilises its volume, gives its form etc.

What we now are going to do is add "mass energy" to that star. To do so, all we have to do is accumulate matter particles, containing mass energy, on the surface of the star so that the energy of those particles joins the mass energy of the star. Adding mass energy increases the “action” on the centre of gravity of the deformation of its space-time. So gradually, our point "center of gravity" start to "back up" in its metric. This is called "collapsing".

When we will have added enough mass energy to our star, its metric will collapse with all the matter it contains (passing through opposite reactions encountered) back to the size of the original metric it started from : The one which has (or had) the size of 10^-35 meter.

We have now obtained a "Black hole" with its singularity that everybody cannot describe.

We can even make a parallel between the photon liberation at 380,000 years after Big bang and the horizon of a Black hole where we find the limit of "free" photons approaching a Black hole.

With these information, we can now start again breaking our brain on problems created by Black holes.

The actual description, above, is that the production of a Black hole is exactly the reverse process of the production (or the evolution) of the universe. So whatever mathematics says that doesn't correspond to the evolution of the universe since 13, 7 billion years has great chances to be wrong.

André Lefebvre

[Marshall]

Interesting speculation, André!
You have obviously been doing a lot of reading and understanding a lot of it.

It is actually a major direction in theoretical physics to try to model what could be at the core of a BH. And to get a better understanding of what BH radiation to expect.

Usually the research involves well-established principles of quantum mechanics, like Heisenberg Uncertainty (nature resists being pinned down too narrowly or definitively) and unitarity (a technical principle considered very important and believed in by major physics celebrities, which could nevertheless be wrong). The current BH research also tends to involve established principles of thermodynamics.

Your speculation falls in that general area---people trying to figure out what's really going on with BHs.

[Andrex]

Thank you, Marshall, for your appreciation.

But my speculation makes me a bit nervous; because it involves a lot of actual accepted "facts" in science.

For instance; saying " all we have to do is accumulate matter particles, containing mass energy, on the surface of the star so that the energy of those particles joins the mass energy of the star." goes against the opinion that by adding black matter to a galaxy has an effect on the deformation of the space-time of that galaxy. Or, more precisely, by adding the stars in orbit would affects the gravity from the centre of that galaxy becomes irrelevant. Since to have an effect, matter has to be added to the surface of the centre of the galaxy or in the Black hole of that galaxy to increase its mass energy.

Which is not exactly excluded since adding black matter doesn't explain why a lot of the stars, for a great distance toward the "outside" of a galaxy move at the same speed. So the formula stating that gravity diminishes gradually as the square of the distance, doesn't work for galaxies. Or maybe I'm wrong there?

[Marshall]

Andre, we have a separate forum especially for personal theories. I will move a posts about your theory of gravity there.
It distracts from the purpose of this thread which is about the standard cosmic model basically the LambdaCDM model that is used throughout the professional literature--so it does not mix so well with personal speculations.

I'm busy now so may not move it immediately---just as time permits.

[Andrex]

Very good. Thank you Marshall.

If you'd be so kind to tell me where it is when you do.

[Marshall]

Any suggestions about title?
We can change it later.
Maybe I could start out by calling it "A variable expansion speed theory of gravity"
If you come up with a different wording, or want your name in the title, let me know.

[Andrex]

I don't understand exactly what that title would mean.

How about: " A slight difference in the interpretation of the origin of gravity"

[Faradave]

How about: " A slight difference in the interpretation of the origin of gravity"

Welcome Andrex,

That title may be adequate but it does little to distinguish your theory from any other that may post about gravity here. Give it some thought. Is there a key concept you can attach? I thought Marshall's suggestion was pretty good but you're the expert of your personal theory.

[Andrex]

I don't think important whose theory it is. What I think important is that mass is not really a quantity of matter; it's energy. So there's a difference between quantity of matter and mass energy. A volume of matter can't deform space-time down to de centre of gravity; mass energy can.

That is the first part I have to determine about the origin of gravity. (Scientists, at least the French scientist I discussed with, told me that it was not important to keep that in mind when talking about gravity. You can understand that I don't have the same opinion).

After that a lot of things fall together. For instance: gravity gives a sense of direction toward one precise point. Expansion gives the exact contrary sense of direction: toward "every" points. But both have one function: to give direction to movement. Both seems to be printed in the fabric of space-time itself.

Those two movements where identified in the result of the analysis of polarisation B by Planck satellite. Where there is matter (high temperature) we see a “focalisation” movement (gravity); where there’s no matter (low temperature) the movement is "dispersion" (expansion).

But I would like to approach step by step.

Possibly, at the end, we will be able to call it "The point theory". To my view, it's easier to comprehend a unidimensional "point" than a unidimensional open "string" which has to have two "points". And since our universe is Euclidian...

But I don't have the maths to verify the whole idea; so it has to stand very solid logically and use all we know about physics and astropysics without disturbing the basic notions.

The main objection will be to accept that "gravity" is not universal; it's local. But that doesn't change anything basic to special relativity, since it doesn't give an image of the universe but only a local image. The main proof is that our universe is flat.

So I can't say what's best. I'll leave it to you.

Thank you.

[Andrex]

So I agree, we pursue with the title:

A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

To make things clear here is a review of what we have:

What we’ve seen already is:

a) Quantity of matter doesn’t deform space-time; mass energy does it.

Based on:
1) Space-time deformation extend to the centre of gravity of that deformation and not simply around the “mass (quantity) of matter”.
2) The “mass” of a proton is composed of 1% for the three quarks and 99% of its inner energy. So its “mass” is definitely “energy” that we call “mass energy”. Quarks themselves have “mass” which indicate that their “mass” should also be “energy”.

b) To increase “mass energy” of an object made of matter, we have to add matter particles (which possess mass energy”) on the surface of that object. So that the center of gravity of the particle adopts the center of gravity of the object, increasing then the mass energy of the object (the particle wants to get to that center of gravity). We can have an idea of the process if we think of what should “feel” the centered particle of an object, when we had weight on the surface of the object. The particle feel an increase of what is “pushing” it. Which means that the added particle has to make contact with the object.

Based on: The collapsing of a star to become either a white dwarf or a neutron star, depending of the amount of solar mass it has (mass energy).

c) We saw that “deformation of space-time” is the result of blocking the “expansion” of the universe on a certain point of the fabric of space-tine. The deformation results when the surrounding space-time continues to expand around the point where expansion is stopped. What stops that point in its expansion is “mass energy” that “acts” on the point of center of gravity.

Based on: Simple logic (for now).

d) To act against expansion of space-time, mass energy has to possess “counteraction” to expansion. Since expansion is “movement” in all directions, mass energy has to be a contrary movement. The opposite movement of “in all directions” is simply “toward one specific point”. The only other movement we observe in the universe beside these two movements is “rotation”. There is no other movement that exists to my knowledge.

e)”Action” and “counteraction” of movement in space-time has to be “incrusted” (printed) in the fabric of space-time; because all that it implies is two different directions adopted by movement.
1) Centrifugal movement (expansion/dispersion).
2) Centripetal movement (Gravity/focalisation).

f) And we now see the effects of the last kind of movement observed in space-time: the results of “rotation”.

Anything that would refute one of these assumptions would invalidate the general hypothesis.

[Faradave]

a) Quantity of matter doesn’t deform space-time; mass energy does it.

Based on:
1) Space-time deformation extend to the centre of gravity of that deformation and not simply around the “mass (quantity) of matter”.

You seem to give the "centre of gravity" some independence from the material (objects with rest mass). But it should be understood that gravitation at the center of a solid ball is actually zero, as measured from the inside.

Similarly, gravitation inside a hollow material sphere, as exerted by the sphere is everywhere zero. The center of gravity is an abstraction convenient to outside observers.

"Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and said that:

A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.

If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.

A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Gravitation would thus seem directly linked to the mass-energy of the structure itself and not to the center of convenience.

[Andrex]

Thank you for your reply Faradave. I love it.

First let's take Newton's proven fact:

"A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre."

Which is completely exact. So let’s do it and place all of its "mass" (energy) at that point in the center.

Now let’s verify: " But it should be understood that gravitation at the center of a solid ball is actually zero, as measured from the inside ."

It’s understood that Gravity is "zero" on a fictional point at the center of gravity; but what happens to a "real point” standing at the center of gravity? Because the points of the fabric of space-time are not “fictional”; they are real; they are the “fabric of space-time”.

So the only explanation to that zero gravity is that pressure coming from all sides cancels itself on the fictional point.

So let me be the “guinea-pig” that is going to take place in the center of a bulk of ten tons of matter floating in space (I wouldn’t dare ask you to do it).

It’s evident that the gravity of the bulk of matter will result in keeping the bulk in one piece. And to succeed, it as to exert a pressure starting from the surface of the bulk down to its center of gravity (Attraction doesn’t exist; particles are “falling” to the center of gravity). What do you think will happen to me if the pressure of the ten tons of matter comes from all sides?
Will I feel zero pressure?

What does the particle at the center of a collapsing neutron star thinks of the zero gravity at its center?

As for "everywhere in the sphere", if I get into a hole of twenty feet deep, and you fill the hole, the earth filling the hole and "falling" toward the center of gravity of the Earth will surely exert a pressure on me.

Come to think of it, let's only make "tought experiments" on this subject. I'm not really interested to get in there just to prove a point.

[Andrex]

I'm almost sure that a lot of the readers think that I'm mixing "mass energy" and "weight". The truth is that we don't know exactly what "weight" is; just like we don't know what "mass" is.

Let's have a look at "weight".

“The most common definition of weight found in introductory physics textbooks defines weight as the force exerted on a body by gravity. This is often expressed in the formula W = mg, where W is the weight, m the mass of the object, and g gravitational acceleration” Wikipedia

But since gravity is not a “force” that pulls (so nothing gets pulled), what is left in the description is “gravitational acceleration” (the falling motion).

Acceleration is applicable to a movement. But object, even if they don’t accelerate, have weight.

So what exactly is weight?

We know that to measure weight the only way is by using a scale. But a scale doesn’t tell you what weight is; it only tells you how much you weight. So what about the gravity acceleration we talked about. Let’s say that you jump of an airplane with a scale tied under your feet. What weight will the scale show?

Answer: Zero; because the scale is accelerating at the same rate as your body is. Which seems to settle the fate of the gravitational acceleration explication. So we don’t have anything left of the official weight explication except what is insinuated in the word “acceleration” which is: movement.

Let’s not take any chances to mix weight with "by standing" effects, and let’s go where universe is flat. Nothing “falls” where the universe is flat. So I’m cruising thru space-time at my proper speed (absolute “rest” is impossible in the universe. Dixit Galileo. Relativity says: “there are no frames of reference which are truly inertial”). So everything is moving regardless of referential. Which means that my body is animated by its proper speed (kinetic energy) without any exterior cause. Just like Andromeda galaxy cruises at its own proper speed toward us (vice versa), regardless of the expansion of the space-time between both galaxies.

While cruising in “Flat” space, I see in front of me, a scale cruising at a slower speed and my feet are gradually getting closer to it.

As soon as my feet touches the scale, a number appears on it. That number represents the difference between my own cruising speed and the cruising speed of the scale. This is the weight I will have in that situation. So weight seems to be a difference between two speeds.

Let’s redo the experience but, this time, with the scale slowly cruising in my direction. As my feet touch the scale, the number that will show won’t be the same as before. It will show the difference of my speed against the counter speed of the scale. Momentarily, the sum of our two speed will show on the scale. But here is the catch. When the scale under my feet adopts my direction what will be the number it shows?

Normally, the scale adopting my speed will have slowed down my speed by the speed of the scale (in both cases experienced). Does this means that the scale will then be at “zero”?

Not at all; because my center of gravity and the center of gravity of the scale will have merged and the scale instead of continuing to adopt the opposite direction of my body, will direct its speed toward our mutual center of gravity. And the speed of my body will adopt the same target which will be somewhere inside me because I have greater mass energy than the scale. And so the number on the scale will represent the blocking of the scale movement toward our mutual center of gravity, by my feet. That will then be the weight shown on the scale in that situation. And it will be the weight of the scale; not mine.

The same process applies on Earth. My body wants to reach the center of gravity of the planet while all the particles that preceded me are blocking my proper speed to get there. My weight is then the result of blocking my proper speed. And it’s that “blocked speed” that increases the mass energy of the planet and adds pressure to its center. My weight is the pressure I make on the ground that keeps me for getting to the center of gravity of the planet.

As you can see, eliminating the "force that pulls mass toward each other" has far greater implications that we really are conscious of.

At least from the way I see it. But, there's a good possibility that I could be mistaking.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Andrex,

(Also.. Welcome to our Forums)

I'm not sure if this ties in well with your personal theory.. but here is how my Model works (briefly):

Matter (which is a Geometry of Energy) can not move without a change in its Geometry. If it was impossible to change the Geometry of Matter, it would be permanently locked in that position of Space-Time. Fortunately, minor pressure against normal Matter causes it to initially resist such pressure until a New Geometry can be obtained/adopted. At this point it has the Geometry of Acceleration, based on the pressure. When the pressure is removed, the Matter in question maintains the new Walking Geometry and now has Inertial Geometry. The faster one makes Matter move, the more complex its Geometry becomes and the slower its internal clocks run due to the extra steps required to maintain a high Speed Geometry (Clock Dilation and Length Contraction).

So, what is Gravity?

A Gravitational Field is non-symmetrical. It has a Gradient Density (curvature). Exposing Matter to this Non-Symmetrical Field has the effect of causing the Geometry of said Matter to take on the Geometry of Acceleration. Thus, when you hold a weight in your hand, you are not feeling the Pull of Gravity. Gravity doesn't Pull. You are feeling the Acceleration aspect of said Matter trying to Accelerate towards the Greater Field Density.

I'm also betting we will eventually find the same holds true for Magnetic and Electrostatic Fields. That they don't pull (or repel) but rather their respective Fields cause a Change in the Geometry of Matter sensitive to those specific Fields to take on the aspect of Acceleration towards Greater Field Density (repulsion is Acceleration in the opposite direction of Greater Field Density)

Ok.. so does this ring true to you? Does it comply with your Theory or conflict with it?

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[Andrex]

Hi Dave;

(Glad to be here)

At least two things, at first glance, clicks between our hypothesis:

1)”… Matter trying to Accelerate towards the Greater Field Density.” Which means to me that matter tries to reach a center of gravity where density is greater for sure.

2) You also give importance to “fields”. As I do myself. But I do it up to the point of giving almost no importance to matter itself. To me, matter as the only “power” to add “mass energy” to an already accretion of particles (atoms, planets, stars etc.). All the rest is related to “interactions” between “centers of gravity” of volumes of space-time deformations.

You present an explanation to movement of matter by a change in its geometry. If you mean a change in its “mass energy”, I agree that it would change its movement (refer to the scale vs myself in a “flat” space-time above). But I’m not sure we mean the same thing.

As for me, movement is the production of kinetic energy. And the first appearance of kinetic energy takes place at the Big bang with the sudden “expansion” toward all directions (explosion is not a real bad image except that there was no center of explosion); which I consider one of the three movements existing in the universe. At that moment, the only thing existing in our universe was what is called a “radiance”. There was no matter at all at the time (Planck satellite). No one explained yet what was “radiating”. Some talk about “inflaton” but that doesn’t explain anything since “inflaton” would be the “vector” of inflation. I don’t believe in “vector particles”. Particles are “energy”; which is enough “work” as it is.

The first particle that appeared in our universe, to my point of view, is the neutrino. It has no mass but has a left helicity which slows him a bit from light speed. He his the reason why time and distances exists (is observable). Furthermore, the universe at that moment was “universally flat”.

Then around 10^-36 sec after “time zero”, another massless particle, with energy of its own, introduced itself in the picture. That particle had a “funny” characteristic: the fabric of its “field of action” had an information directing movement to its own center. Which was the exact counter direction of expansion. The “bud” of mass energy had then emerge in the universe; but it had nothing else than the counter direction of expansion imprinted in it. This didn’t give it any mass. One thing it started though, is “inflation”. His sudden appearance and rapid disintegration in successive “mass particles” (everything was finished at 10^-33 sec), augmented the volume of space-time just as when Archimedes jumped in his bathtub and augmented its water volume.

Another consequence it had, was that caracteristic of directing to its own center resulted in that its "field of action" was something completely "outside" of the space-time in expansion. The universe was now composed of two kind of movement almost not interacting with each other. They both had "their own space-time. The universe was flat exept in the volumes of those massless particles after their desintegrations in mass particles.

I’m explaining all this, to come to the point, later, when “massive particles” brushing past each other, either accreted or gained speed just by passing by each others. I think that that’s when proper (individual) movement was achieved by particles.

Hope that my English is clear enough. The possibility of being wrong is enough without adding bad English
:-)

Andre

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Andre,

Will have to think about this. Oh, your English is very respectable.. my Nephew graduated High School here and has far far less a command of English than you display. I may get back before Monday, but if not.. have a good weekend. Being new here, you should know we sometimes may take some time in responding to a thread. It's not a chat room...lol. Many, like myself, get rather busy on occasion.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

[Andrex]

Have a nice week-end Dave!

And so for the rest of our readers.

[Andrex]

I was implying, in previous messages, that matter particles appeared gradually in our universe. It would be nice to find out when exactly each particle did appear in space-time. So let’s try to find out.

As you surely have noted, my hypothesis stands on one base only, witch is “movement”. This movement has three ways of expressing itself:

1) Toward all directions
2) Toward a specific point
3) In a rotation.

These are the only three possible ways that movement can be observed and expressed.

And since movement is the product of kinetic energy, expansion toward all direction is undoubtedly a manifestation of kinetic energy.

Now expansion started at the moment of the Big bang. In fact the Big bang itself was a sudden liberation of all the kinetic energy that existed at the time. And that liberation occurred at exactly 10^-43 sec after time = zero. At this moment, which is called “Planck time”, all the energy actually in the universe today, was release in the universe of that time.

So you can imagine, or rather you cannot imagine what the density of total actual energy was when it was packed in a volume who’s diameter was 10^-35 meter. It’s so difficult to imagine that scientist would rather say that energy was “infinite”. But they know it was finite. They event know how dense it was. But for now all we need is to perceive the incredible density of the universe at the time we’re observing.

When we’ve recuperated from the dizziness that such density could have produced in our mind, we easily understand that expansion was gradually diluting that enormous density.

A funny thing happens when you consider fundamental particles in regard of their mass. They separate in three generations of particles. It looks as if each generation of particles appeared in phase with the density of energy that surrounded them. That would mean that the appearance of fundamental particles was a consequence of the gradually decreasing energy density of the universe. In other words the first particle that appeared in our universe, and its "descendants", where constantly adjusting themselves to the surrounding density in order to “survive”; which really mean: "in order to be well-balance with its environment". We could also say to attain “stability”.

We know that “stability” was not attained by one single fundamental particle in exclusivity (except maybe the electron which is a lepton; I’m talking of hadrons). Hadrons finally gained stability by joining together in bunch of three quark particles. One of these groups became a proton which is the most stable particle of the universe. Its life-span is longer than the actual age of our universe. We don’t know exactly how long it can live but our actual estimation is 10^33 years. The next stabilised particle that universe produced is at the next level of particles. The level of the atom; with the iron atom. Curiously it obtained that stability by using the two previous stable particles it had produce: Protons and electrons; but since évolution needs some little imbalance to pursue itself, there was implication of the neutron whose life-span is about fifteen minutes.

So let’s have à look at the mass of all fundamental particles, placed by decreasing mass value, and we will have an idea of the surrounding density when they appeared in our universe:

Top quark = 173,34 GeV
Higgs boson = 125 GeV
Z boson = 91,167 GeV
W boson = 80,403 GeV
Bottom quark = 4 à 4,4 GeV
Tau = 1,777 GeV
Charmed quark = 1,15 à 1,35 GeV
Muon = 105,66 MeV
Strange quark = 80 à 130 MeV
Down quark = 4 à 8 MeV
Up quark = 1,5 à 4 MeV
Électron = 511 KeV
Photon = masse = none
Gluon = masse = none

This is surely something to think about, I guess. And let's add one more thing which as to be pointed out:

Each generation of particles disintegrated one inside the other's "volume" starting from the gluon boson. So at the end, those generations came out to be inserted like Russian dolls who's biggest doll was the gluon.

[Andrex]

What is mass exactly?

In reality, we have to admit that nobody knows what mass is. Science as postponed the question by identifying an ejection of a particle at 125 GeV as the Higgs boson that they wanted to find absolutely. The reason of the Higgs boson is to explain mass (firstly of weak force bosons but now of all the particles). But the explanation isn’t very satisfactory intellectually because mass is now the consequence of the great density of a Higgs field. The explanation would be acceptable if, at the date when that field is supposed to exist, the universe itself had not an “inconceivable” density. Which demands to the Higgs field to be denser than density inconceivable.

With the density of the universe at the time, there is no need for the Higgs field density to slow down particles giving them “mass” (which is rather a funny concept of mass and inertia). Furthermore, if density gives “mass” to weak force bosons and that those bosons act almost as photons, why wouldn’t those weak force particles be the “massive photons” of that epoch? Massive photon are predicted but never were observed. It would be a good occasion for a barber to come over with is Ockham’s razor, I think.

But we do know that mass is a form of energy (E= Mc2). The other thing we know is that energy transforms itself in different forms of energy. So the question is: Of what form of energy mass is the transformation of?

To put a finger on the answer, we have to define de characteristics of mass; and the one characteristic that is important is that mass energy deforms space-time. And the deformation results in a topology that sends everything toward one point: the centre of gravity.

A topology (or direction information) toward one specific point of space-time is exactly the reverse topology (contrary direction information) of expansion, which sends everything in all directions.

So both these energy are the same energy, meaning that their difference is simply in the direction of their movement. One toward everywhere and the other toward one specific point: a center of gravity.

The question now is why don’t they respond to the same topology?

To find that, we have to go back to the Big bang, where the movement that manifested itself was directed toward “everywhere” (and the formidable temperature was the consequence of so much energy in a so small space-time). That was the beginning of the expansion of the universe. At the time there was no particles (unless maybe the “virtual” neutrinos, which I think was). That universe was one exclusively of “radiance” only (of energy).

Then appeared the first “virtual” particle related to matter: the gluon. The name “gluon” comes from “glue” which sticks things together. The question regarding the gluon is: how can that particle “glue” whatever it touches (in fact: “what it contains”)? The only logical answer is: it tends to send whatever gets in its “field”, toward one specific point because that is the information given by its topology. Inside a Gluon, direction is given toward one specific point; that’s why it seems to glue quarks and protons and neutrons together. They all want to get to the center of gravity; like everything else in a space-time deformation.

Furthermore; when a gluon disintegrates, it does so, in 75% of the occasions, in a quark and antiquark Top. Which are the most massive of fundamental particles. This means that their inner energy pushes toward their centre of gravity deforming the space-time around them. That was when gravity appeared for the first time in our universe.

I prefer this idea of topology instead of “strong nuclear force” which comes from nowhere for the gluing action. Mainly because it’s natural and it’s simple. Furthermore, we have a lot more information now, than what was available in 1935, when Yakawa and others, suggested a strong nuclear force, to keep ordinary matter stable.

I agree that this idea eliminates one of the four fundamental forces; but gravitation isn’t a force either; it’s a “consequence of space deformation”. So the “superforce” (unified forces), instead of being a combination of four, like before Einstein who eliminated the “gravity force” making them only three, are now left to two. So what? Some day we will be able to eliminate those last two somewhat “magical” forces by an observed natural and simple consequence. Specially that they were already joined in a single force called “electroweak force”.

Furthermore, that notion of “forces” coming out of nowhere, is 328 years old. And even its owner, Isaac Newton, didn’t think the idea, that masses attracted to each other without a physical connection, was an acceptable notion; but like he said: “It works; so…

After the “gravity force”, was discovered the “electromagnetic force” in 1860. The notion of “magical” force coming out of nowhere was definitly implanted in the mind of people.

In 1915 Einstein tried to eliminate that magical notion in proving that the force of gravity was simply the consequence of a deformation in the space-time geometry. He didn’t get any Nobel prize for his discovery and the only concession made to his new notion was to change the word “force” by the word “Interaction”. So scientist were now using the word ”interaction” but very few, while doing so, where not “thinking” the meaning of “force”.

Twenty years later, Hideki Yukawa came up with a new “force”: the nuclear force with mesons being the vector of the “force” responsible of the “interaction”.

In the sixties, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam devised the electroweak theory. The weak force theory wasn’t very solid yet. With this new theory, some other characteristic of the weak force where perceived; and three bosons where attributed to that “force”: the Z, W+ and W- bosons. But even today, the “action” of the weak force, is rather “blurred” inside a proton/neutron particle. Strong and weak forces overlap their influences.

In the late sixties and seventies, Murray Gell-Mann and others discovered the existence of quarks. Which gave birth to quantum chromodynamics. This theory added substance to the weak force by distancing it a bit more from the strong force in specifying that the strong force was involving “flavor” and “color” to quark particles.

Mainly, the weak force came about when Beta decay (a type of radioactive decay) was observed in the transformation of a neutron into a proton, in the 1950's. But the idea was put up in the 30's. That form of decay emits either a positive or a negative boson which are W+ and W- bosons. The Z is the Zero electric charge boson included by Weinberg. Those three bosons are also called: “the intermediate vector bosons” which kind of indicate the “blurred” effect they have on particles.

Finally the “Grand Unified Theory” (GUT) could be the result, not of unifying fundamental forces, but simply by eliminating them from explanations in physics.

When we think of the topology (toward the centre) that we imagined inside the “action field” of the gluon, we perceive that both strong and weak nuclear forces become irrelevant to explain the physical “facts”. There are problems toward the existing theories though; because gravity doesn't work in quantum physics. It doesn't say if space-time deformations doesn't apply though; specially if we take notice of the pressure of density in their environment.

On the other hand, our concept of a gluon explains perfectly the nature and the origin of mass energy and matter itself.

So, we'll have to wait and see.

[Andrex]

What’s a gluon?

In my previous posts we observed the importance of the gluon particle regarding “mass energy” and matter itself. So we should, I think, try to identify the most we can of the characteristics of a gluon.

Officially, the gluon is a vector gauge boson that “mediate” strong interactions of quarks in quantum chromodynamics. They carry the color charge of the strong interaction. Its difference with the boson photon, which mediate electromagnetic interaction, is that it doesn’t have an electric charge. Its spin is of 1 (full spin) just like the photon. Notice that the necessity of having 8 kind of gluons comes from the notion of colour of the quantum chromodynamics theory which is a “tool” used for the comprehensions of events. The particles don’t have real colors and anticolors as we “see” color.

The situation of a hadron composed of quarks, is “colorless” (white); obtained by choosing different color of quarks.

But let’s KISS.

Let’s make a free assumption, just for the fun of it. Today is Sunday; so nobody works and assumptions are not as important as on a working day. Let’s adopt the idea that two of the three massless particles are originated from Planck’s era, just like the kinetic energy responsible for the expansion of the universe starting at the Big bang (10^-43 sec after time = zero). Those two particles would be: the neutrino and the gluon. The main characteristic of such particles would be that they can’t be a “volume” because volume appeared at Planck’s time and those particles originated before that time. So they then would have to be “surface” particles (without volume).

The difference between those two “surface” particles would sum to the fact that a gluon as a spin of 1 (full spin) and the neutrino as a spin of ½ (half spin). The neutrino as no electric charge and its helicity is negative (spinning left in regard to its trajectory). Nobody is sure yet that antineutrino exists. The antineutrinos that where produced didn’t act as neutrinos, which goes against CPT. Neutrino doesn’t really have an action field; that is why they practically don’t interact with anything. They adopt the “flavor” of the electron (muon and Tau) they associate with. Their cosmic radiation in theory is at the temperature of 1, 9 kelvin; compared to 2, 728 kelvin for the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Gluon on the other hand, besides having the official characteristics mentioned above isn’t anymore a “vector” of strong nuclear force inn our hypothesis. We replaced that by an intrinsic sense of direction toward its center imprinted in its “fabric. However, gluon has an “action field” of 10^-15 meter; which, by the way, is the size of an atoms nucleus.

So there isn’t much to go on; is there?

Except that the observation that a gluon is a two dimensional object (surface) explains something rather surprising. Let’s say that we have a photon with its surface floating in an upright position, in front of us and rotating on its axis. When the rotation reaches 45o (degrees) the gluon disappears to our perception; because it has no depth/ thickness. While rotation continues, the surface gradually reappears. But that new surface is the other side of the previous surface. That second surface is like the mirror of the first surface.

Curiously, when a gluon, stretched to the maximum by the expansion when it presents itself in our universe, disintegrate, in fact it splits in two, which means that one side of the surface is torn of the other side of the surface. One of the results is the issuing of two fundamental particles which one is the mirror of the other. They are known as: Top quark and antiTop quark particles. Funny like things explain by themselves when we let them do it; isn’t it?

The second result is that those two particles are the first two “massive” particles that appeared in our universe. Naturally, the explanation of this event also explains by itself. We’ll get to that somewhere along the way.

Have a nice Sunday. Tomorrow is Monday and I'll have to get serious.

[Andrex]

Where does rotation of planets comes from?

Well, I guess that rotation of planets doesn’t start before matter particle accretion starts. So let’s attend at the first accretion of two particles.

Cruising through space-time, one particle proceeds toward another particle because each one of them has its own speed and its own straight trajectory (universe is flat). Since the “explosion” of the Big bang created movement going in all directions, coming from all directions (up, down, sideways etc), it’s normal that particles trajectory cross each other’s once in a while. Our two particles have “mass”, naturally. Which means that both are installed inside a space-time deformation. In fact, if we think about it, the movement of the particles really depends on the movement of the center of gravity of their space-time deformation. The matter of the particles is “imprisoned” in that deformation and has no other option but to follow the… “container”.

What happens is, while brushing by one another to closely, the two center of gravity get caught in a “tide effect” that joins both centers into one single center, thus augmenting the “gravitational power” of that new center of gravity and making the joined deformations of their space-time, quite a bit larger. As for the two particles, as soon as the new center of gravity is determined, both of them tries to get to it and occupy the position.

When one almost reach the position, it finds the other particle trying to do the same thing. The result is that each prevents the other to take the targeted location. Their proper (personal) speed (kinetic energy) get in conflict and they start to push one another. Doing so, the result is that each particle starts making the other revolve around the gravity center instead of occupying it. That’s when the rotation of quantity of matter started. And that is also when pressure on a point center of gravity started to accumulate inside a quantity of matter. Others particles captured by the space-time deformation continued accumulating pressure on the center of gravity, adding speed to the rotation and increasing its space-time deformation.

Accretion of particles made volumes of matter, planets, stars etc. and all of them are still in rotation.

But sudenly, a question comes to my mind:

It's very nice to describe particles pushing one another to occupy a mutual center of gravity; but what happens when those two particles are atom nucleus surrounded by several layers of electron clouds?

Well, I guess that those electron clouds have to put up with the pressure produced by the merging of their atoms center of gravity. And where the preceding electron cloud is not to its maximum capacity of dealing with pressure, the new arriving électron cloud simply pushes the pressure of that valence electron cloud to its capacity.

I'll have to think a little bit about that. Maybe it would change some of my learned notions.

[Andrex]

What’s a gravitational “tidal effect”

First of all, it's not a "force".

A gravitational “tidal effect” occurs when two “independent” center of gravity of a space-time deformation touches at each other’s edge. Those space-time deformation can be “bushing by” one another or one deformation can be inside of a greater space-time deformation. Both situations produce a “tidal effect”.

Let’s try to visualise the event with a drawing.

We will start by giving a V shape to space-time deformation (in reality it's a decreasing metric of space-time). In fact, I’ll propose a toast with two different sizes of glass wine. The smaller glass wine representing the smaller deformation inside a bigger one. For the purpose of the experience, we will say that the small glass is empty and the big one is full. And I will ask you to imagine what would happen if the glasses, when “toasted” to one another, merged their edges to get a mutual edge. So here is the drawing of that toast:



As you can see the merging of both edges results in a lower mutual edge and the wine in the big glass will flow in the small glass. Furthermore, the merging of edges also has another important effect: the two bases of the glasses get closer to each other. Which means that both centers of gravity draw closer together and stop coinciding with the center of each volume of matter contained inside each deformations. That's why Jupiters mass energy, for example, displaces the center of gravity of the solar system.

Now let’s have a look at a real “tidal effect” seeing it from above:



The blue line is the sea level. The incurved black line is the Earth space-time deformation and the outcurve black line is the moon space-time deformation. The two points touching is the "lower" merged edge of both deformation (like the merge glass edges we just saw). That edge of both deformation being “lower” than de rest of both edges (represented by both triangles); the sea water tends to flow toward the lowering (the drop). This effect happens where Earth’s oceans are in line with the Moon and when they’re in line with the sun.

That’s what explains the seemingly “attraction” resulting from deformation of space-time geometry.

(Sorry for the poor quality of the drawing (I did my best) and the French terms on it (it was done for a French article).

[Andrex]

I guess I've put to much "material" at the same time and everybody left the subject.

I'm sorry.

[Dave_Oblad]

I'm still around but under pressure to complete a program for work.. back when I can.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[Andrex]

OK! See you when you can.

[Faradave]

I guess I've put to much "material" at the same time and everybody left the subject.

Not "left", but "catching up" in my case. You are articulate and display good familiarity with current principles. It might be helpful to make shorter posts, leave longer breaks in between and/or to periodically post summaries which list how your theory differs from convention.

In the "New Posts" screen, you can see a current tally of the number of views which your thread. It is currently 334, which is quite respectable for just over 4 days!

[Andrex]

Thank you Faradave;

I'll try to control my enthusiasm. :-)

[Andrex]

Planck’s results



One of the results of satellite Planck’s picture of CMB that caught my attention was the effect on light on the two kinds of volume of space-time in the picture. The volume where there was matter (in red/orange on Planck's picture at the top) and the volumes where there was no matter (in blue/green at the same picture).

In the blue spots, light was dispersed and in the red spots, light focalized. It’s evident that light was following the topology (information of the sense of direction to follow) given by the volume of space-time involved. Just as light does when going through a gravitational lensing. Here’s how it looks:



As everyone can see, what we have here are the two motions; one resulting of gravity (where matter is) and one resulting of expansion (where no matter is).

From these facts, we can understand how today's filament distribution of matter at large scale of the universe. Just imagine the expansion of the "blue" parts of space-time, while the red parts where submitted to gravity. 13,8 billions years later we shouldn't wonder why matter is concealed in "filaments".

Furthermore we know that superclusters and clusters of galaxies are situated where filaments seem to cross one another. They don't really cross each other but at that scale, they seem to be bonded by gravity. Which is not really the case. In fact even the "filaments" expands; but they contain so much volumes of galaxies that don't expand, that their own expansion is a lot slower than the volumes where there's no galaxies.

So the image at that great scale seems to show no expansion in the filaments.



Unfortunately, when you view videos showing those filaments, they show only the "gravitational" effect while the expansion effect should be a lot more important and more visible.

[Andrex]

The results of the analysis of Planck's CMB photo made everybody a great surprise even though few people talk about it.

Here's that photo:



The anomaly is that if we follow the line in the bottom picture, which designs a dipole, one half (top half) of the photo contains more energy than the other half (bottom half). The lower part of the picture is colder that the upper part. Which means that there's more energy in the upper part than in the lower part.

But not only is there more energy in the upper part, the intensity of the energy in each of the blue and red portions of that part of space-time is greater than the intensity we find in the same portions in the lower part. And where it's colder, is where there's less matter. This denotes that the surplus of energy is accountable to mass energy were the matter is.

These anomalies don't fit with our actual theory.

So what's wrong with our actual theory?

It rather simple to identify. The anomaly tells us that we have it wrong regarding the apparition of matter in our universe. In other words, we are wrong regarding when fundamental mass particles came to, in our universe.

We mustn't forget that when we look at this picture, we see the result of whatever happened before that picture was taken. And behind this picture, the universe was opaque. So if there's a difference between the quantity of energy contained in the two halves of this picture, it means that, at the Big bang a quantity of energy was released and, sometime afterward, another quantity of energy introduced itself in the universe. That last quantity of energy was related to matter since the surplus of energy is also related to matter.

We've already seen the two kinds of polarisation on the photo in the preceding post. And one kind of polarisation, the focusing kind, is related to matter (gravity), while the dispersing kind is related to expansion. What this anomaly tells us is that the focusing kind was introduced after the advent of the dispersing kind. It also means that the dispersing kind of energy as nothing to do, whatsoever with the focusing kind of energy since it was well established when the other appeared. So they are independent. This simply means that gravity doesn't have any effect on expansion. So, no wonder space-time is "flat". It always has been. Furthermore, there's no reason to complicate our lives with "critical density". The notion doesn't even apply.

In other words, gravity is not universal; it's localised to certain volumes of space-time. It also means that when the focusing energy jumped in our universe, it had the same effect that when Archimedes junped in is bathtub. The volume of the universe inflated instantly. Whe call that the "inflation" period which started at 10^-36 sec and stopped at 10^-32 sec after time = zero.

What is left to find out, is which volume of space-time could be independent of space-time itself; and how can this be possible?

One thing we now know for sure, is if we could have a picture of the instant of the Big bang, we would get a picture uniformly "blue" without any red dots.

I'll leave you with these infos for a while. But they decided me to describe my fifteen years old hypothesis that easily explains those facts. I was just waiting for them to appear.

[Andrex]

I don't know if I've supplied you with enough information to back up the following, but here we can speculate; so:

How was the universe born?

The universe was born at time zero +. Right at the beginning of Planck’s epoch, 10^-43 sec before Big bang. I consider the period of 10^-43 sec being the gestation period of our universe.

Our universe is now confirmed being Euclidian (flat) and according to Euclid, lines, surfaces and volumes are composed by unidimensional points. So, our Euclidian universe has to be also composed of unidimensional points. And the whole story of its birth has to start by a first unidimensional point since our universe is dynamic and so, has a “beginning”

This is a representation of the initial unidimensional point that composes Euclidian space.



This unidimensional point cannot be seen because it has only one dimension which is: “to be”. It can never be observed until it decides “to act”. The problem is how can it acts when there’s no space to move into? The answer is rather simple. The only possible “action” is to rotate. But to rotate the point as to have kinetic energy. Luckily, it’s proven that a zero point has, at least, a 0+ energy. And that (+) is enough to start the unidimensional points’ rotation.

As soon as the rotation starts, a centrifugal effect is felt by our unidimensional point which obliges it to duplicate itself. And since the rotation speed is even and constant, every time it makes a full rotation, duplication of the original point is necessary.

Note that the new point always emerge from the center of the line where the first unidimensional point appeared. So every second time a point emerges at this center, you get one more point to one side of that center; and a kind of “wobbling” (oscillation) effect is given to the whole line, caused by the momentarily disequilibrium of number of points on each side of the center.

On the following drawing, the “wobbling” effect is always to the same side, to the left part of the line. The following appearance of a point after the wobble stabilises the line because we then get even number of dots each side of the center. The whole movement can be considered as a “fluctuation”. The rotation is counter clock wise.



Gradually the points at each ends of the line increases their speed to keep up with the constant speed rotation of the center. The more their speed increases, the more the center point is stretched. So the right side of the line has to constantly increase its centripetal reaction to the pull of the left side of the line.

When the pull of the left side of the line becomes too powerful to hold for the right side of the line, the center point rips itself and the points forming the right side of the line are projected in a bundle (the point nearer to center is pulled so fast that it joins the last point of the right side line). while the points of the left side of the line are projected in all directions.



What can we see of the normal reactions of the points during the “break of the original line?

1) The points of right hand side of the line, not only gathers in a bunch, but the hole surface created by that bunch of points inverse its rotation and all points start to rotate clock wise in a full rotation unity.

2) The points of the left hand side of the original line, not only do they scatter everywhere, but they each keep their counter clock wise rotation.

3) It’s evident that the scattering, of counter clock wise rotation points, in all directions, gives depth to the previous surface they were part of.

4) It is also evident that in regard to the rotation of their original line, they keep only half of that rotation. Which mean they acquire a half spin.

5) As for the bunch of points from the right hand side of the line, they keep the bi-dimensional characteristic and produce another surface that rotates clock wise like we’ve seen on the graphic. So they attribute themselves a new “full spin”.

So the new situation is that the scattered points create a volume and the other points stays a rotating “surface” that slowly starts once more to expand. This is the situation when the Big bang occurred. Particles having a half spin (1/2 spin) produces our universe by “radiating” in all directions, while their movement was making distances and time perceivable. It made them perceivable because the left handed of their spin prevented them to move at light speed which would put them in a state of “zero distance” and “frozen time”. Perceivable space-time was there born.

Naturally, the projection of those half spin particles was in a straight line trajectory in all directions; so that the universe of that moment was a “flat universe”, since nothing was opposing the movements of those massless particles.

When the scattering of those particles occurred, the increasing of kinetic energy of the rotating original line was stopped. All the energy that had accumulated in the left side of the line was now dispersing inside the new volume of the space time universe. By the same event, the length possible to be measured in our space time universe was determine by the length of half the length of the original line PLUS the additional point that made happen the sectioning of the line. That length was 10^-35 meter; the Planck’s’ length.

That single sectioning of the original line decided on a) the Planck’s length, b) the Planck’s time, the total energy of the universe at that time, which also mean the determination of light speed, the expansion effect and so on.

It also meant that the other particles still in the surface universe of Planck’s epoch, where still too small to be perceived in the new tridimensional universe. So they were gathered in their location and that surface started slowly to rotate and… gain size.

While those were gaining size, our universe was expanding. So when the surface particle were big enough (10^-35 meter) to manifest itself in our universe, it had expanded to 10^-15 meter. That’s when the surface particle came into our universe and acquired its “field of action” of 10^-15 meter. And the universe kept on expanding.

That surface particle we now call the gluon. Its main characteristic is the same it had during Planck’s epoch; it “pulls”. In fact, the topology inside its “field of action” directs everything it contains to one point in particular (acquiered when the line split) instead of everywhere like the expansion was indicating. The “fabric” of expanding universe was pointing to all directions while the “fabric” inside the gluon was pointing toward a single location. But being a “surface” particle, the gluon didn’t have any mass.

However, since the expansion continued, the surface particle was being stretched. Possessing only to faces (front and back) without thickness, its stretching had to conclude by separating both faces one from the other. So two half surfaces appeared one being the mirror picture of the other.

Both had the same “action field” of 10^-15 meter that the original surface had, and also had the same topology characteristic. Being half surfaces they were instantly required to react to the amount of kinetic energy that adopted their topology. This energy started “pushing” on the center point its topology was indicating; and the result was that they made the surface particle withdraw onto themselves capturing kinetic energy while becoming a volume.

Those two new small volumes in our universe, holding inside them kinetic energy directed to the center point of their volume, where called Top and antiTop quarks. The first two mass particles had just been brought into our universe. The result of the one point directed kinetic energy made pressure on that point and deformed the space-time surrounding those two particles up to the diameter of both respective action field. Space-time deformation was then imprinted in our universe.

The jumping of the gluon in our universe, followed by the rapid successions of disintegration in different successive quarks and some other particles, was responsible of the inflation period that our universe had to go through between 10^-36 and 10^-32 sec after time = zero.

This is my speculated description of the gestation and the birth of our universe that grew up to be the marvelous spectacle we can contemplate around us today.