Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns
left-menu
From 'Now' to Dark Matter

A Paradox,  a paradox
HOW BIG IS OUR UNIVERSE?
LIVING IN A FLAT UNIVERSE
'D' NUMBERS AND COSMOLOGY
H-B-N UNIVERSE CRITIQUE
ARGUMENT FOR THE BIG APPEARANCE UNIVERSE
THE HOW OF NOW
Mass as the Confinement of Energy
Metaphysical Considerations
Gre theory and Dark matter
Anecdotes & Experiments
Comparative Physics
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
CONTACT NOEL EVERZ
Tell a Friend

 
Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology

Comparative Physics – June 2009
Noel Eberz Na’alehu, Hawaii


Mellowing out, the essential thesis – Now and Gre theory – on my website www.cosmic-concerns.net and in my book ‘From Now to Dark matter’ is not as radical as might first be imagined. It does have differences in perceptions of reality vs. their assumed mathematical expressions. First order, Space-now or Now physics has serious contrast with Space-time, the velocity of light (Voc) and the nature of Black holes in Relativity, but it does provide an obvious solution to Time’s arrow. It doesn’t argue with Quantum mechanics except excluding the ‘undiscovered particulate graviton’ for gravity and then bring it all together with Gre theory, a suggestion for the nature of Dark matter and as an alternative to the elusive concepts of Strings. While much has already been previously stated, certain additional comparisons might advance some relative arguments and further insights. In some cases overlapping views, like the duality of light propagation, might be appropriate. For example, while I claim Now more realistic than space-time, there is no competition on the usefulness of Relativistic mathematics. Granted my objection to the physics of Relativity in Black holes is more damning. Yet the whole subject is indeed more hypothetical in astronomical observations. My alternative interpretation dealt with the nature of Mass as the confinement of energy, top down, and how it is agglomerated or destroyed and the consequent flaw or contradiction such as presently defined in a black hole. Additionally my Bowen condensation analog is a novel interpretation of universe trends and a reasonable argument that gravity is not likely a quantum particulate member and better defined in Gre theory optical behavior with its temporal contribution to mass as the confinement of energy. Equivalently, my book does not refute as much as suggest these dualities, particularly for better potential layman understanding. Outlining the topics and starting with the resurrection of the defunct phlogiston to make the point of alternative ideas, these are; Phlogiston II, Energy Confinement II, and Cosmology theories in general.

Phlogiston II
Consider some history: Phlogiston is an ancient Greek word of dubious meaning associated with fire or even life itself, sort of an element as in ‘Earth, fire, air and water’ but not in our modern table of elements. The literature identifies Joseph Priestly as its greatest advocate and Antoine Lavoisier as the debunker-in-chief of the concept. But to me the scientific logic is a little flawed and demonstrates a concern. While Lavoisier was the precision chemist of his time (there was still confusion identifying oxygen as an oxidizer or with ‘fixed-air’ being CO2), his determination that combustion could be equated with a conservation of atomic masses including recognizing the elusive gas of oxygen and its role was indeed profound. But all this is a long way from determining the conservation law of mass & energy and their exchange ratio extant today, E=mc2.
Consequently phlogiston is that E/m so miniscule in ‘weight’ but so evident in the energy release in combustion, or simply the comparison of chemical energy between very obvious material states. This remains hardly more measurable in a modern laboratory and more likely accountable in electron volts or other caloritic terms, not in ergs/gram as E=mc2 would suggest. Or another equally major but miniscule step down of the magnitude of the E/m ratio as in moving a mass from one gravitational environment to another and as much unrecognized as the ancient concept of phlogiston. This is a direct consequence of what I refer to as the sterile nature of Relativity establishing the E/m ratio as a constant and not a variable.
My conjecture that the essence of the gravity field which establishes the basic feature of pure energy as exhibited in the velocity of light (Voc) but also establishes the ratio of that quantity contained – eg. confined – in the measure of static or rest mass. If indeed the Voc slows down in a higher gravity environment (refraction vs. space metric expansion) then there are two ways to perceive the effect: the unobserved gravity field becoming more ponderous itself, or that the ratio of energy to mass where confined, would appear to be diminished yet not easy to observe.
Either way, this supports a new concept of mass exhibited in high mass environments different from the hierarchy of mass organization as we normally perceive it. As previously noted in my Gre theory: in open space this excess ponderability is divergent Gre particles as manifest in Dark matter environments, or in high mass objects like black holes/grey holes, where it is a longer more temporal release of both div & curl components in extreme Gre concentrations.
Closer to home, moving a rest mass from one gravity field to another, eg. a lower shelf to a higher, would be manifest in an E/m ratio modification, readily calculable but not measurable – the last unrecognized remnant of phlogiston.

Energy Confinement II
Concerning the theme ‘Mass as the Confinement of Energy’, this essay expands the scope to the quantum level. As discussed previously, the kernel & KE (kinetic energy) concept is pretty effective for all larger named forms of mass concerning both aggrandizement and destruction (Eberz, 2008). Besides it being applied to dark matter and delving into faulty black hole physics, little was said about quantum physics. And while dynamic fleeting Gre particles explain a lot, charge was not really addressed. On the latter, I have become more intrigued on the quark triplet complexity well described by Anastopoulos (2008) or Close (2007), and how it might fit into my Gre theory refractive physics. But the greater concern and mystery is how important charge and magnetism plays in all physical phenomenon. Charge is not only the quantizer but also appears to be the stabilizer for all permanent forms of mass. And the complexity of quarks offers a lot of clues in this behavior. The facts: All known particles have +1, 0, -1 charge and composed of two or three quarks of individual +-1/3 or +-2/3 combinations. But only the electron, proton and their antiparticles are indefinitely stable. All the others decay and an isolated quark has never been observed. As such, quark characteristics are derived from the transient energy and decay modes of all the quark pair and triplet combinations including their moderator/boson hidden energies.

But Quantum physics utilizes some other conceptual notions. It principally deals in particles and/or their fields (like Higgs particle vs. Higgs field), which are terms different than just mass, or independent free energy as say in a photon as a wave. In fact, many of the mediators (bosons) like gluons are not necessarily just particles but free energy packets and could be considered the KE associated with the kernel mass of the quantum particle hence just additional ‘confined energy’ (CE). This merely changes the gluon concept from being ‘glue’ to being the free energy the atom or quark has captured e.g. Who’s doing what to whom? For example: a proton can be considered 2% quarks and 98% CE and a quark 10% electron base mass (no name but hence called Qm, quark mass) and 90% CE. To explain further, defining atomic mass can be expressed (revealed) two ways: With the electron mass = 1, and the proton = 1836 electron masses or in Qm terms, again the electron = 1, the up quark (uQm) = 10 each with the down quark (dQm) = 18. See Fig. 2. Together 10+10+18= 38 Qm for the proton with all the rest gluon/CE energy. Then in effect, the kernel & KE concept can be extended to the base of all matter, below which there is no absolute single quark or mass except the naked electron, mass = 1. But as a final note, compared to the electron weight, while we might imagine the individual quark weights vs. nucleon weights, it is still difficult to interpret the up/down Qm difference (10-18=-8) or the proton/neutron differences (1836-1839=-3) as related to individual partial-charge configurations. Compare Fig. 2 & 3.

Beside the fact that two colliding EH photons can create an electron/positron pair (positronium), it is the only transition we know from pure energy (no charge) to minimum mass (+- charge). See Fig. 1. But we can deduce two things: All rest mass particles (arrested energy) appear to be tied to a fixed/local space (yes they can add motional KE) and all particles must have a full unit of charge as a sum of 1/3 and 2/3 quark elements. What demands that full unit for the observable, while the unobservable is conjectured only as partial units? Mysterious yes, but there are multiple ways of looking at it if we consider what is permanent, unstable or transmittable EH radiation.
If first we speculate there is no such thing as a full charge, we might think of positronium as a combined +1/3, +2/3 and -1/3, -2/3 positron/electron, charge 0 but spin about each other. See Fig. 4. But is that arrangement workable (beside being prone to annihilation and degeneration) and how do electrons and positrons become established as independent ions? However once they are, it is recognized they are not just point charges but do have a scatter or jitter radius as if the electron maybe did comprise a -2/3 and -1/3 spin pair. Then from that point what are the possible collision environments to create a quark? See Fig. 4. While the creation environments might be poorly known, obviously appropriate energies and orientations determine these probabilities including more energetic spin entrapments. While strangely correlated with arrested mass, the dual nature of free energy is also relevant. In terms of energy content, the idea of a photon is practical but as a wave, transverse at that, it is more comprehensible, explaining polarization, reflection, refraction including other optical behavior and demanding some form of ‘shear’ from the space fabric itself.
So beside the mechanics of the collision environment, I see the intriguing importance of the space fabric creating these partial charge states four ways: not only complicated by having two quantized values but also the positive/negative form. However, we might add a real distinction to narrow the choices as when antiparticles obey not the right but the left-hand rule. If these features are not balanced locally (atomic size) they can pervade endless larger scales with gravitational, electronic charge and magnetic fields with tremendous interacting effects. For the most part the astronomical mass, energy, space (MES) environment is pretty balanced with their mass and charge requirements satisfied but there are some very violent and disruptive environments that we can assume major dynamic redistribution of these elements. Great energy fluxes are observed on stars, novas and mysterious jets in massive galactic centers.
So in summary and reinterpreting, the dynamic Gre particles combined association with the space fabric’s partial stress charges do build up to an observable form for all our known permanent and unstable element or particle world. The charge element is quantized and all rest mass configurations must establish standing Gre wave patterns proportional to the local Gre density environments. A Maxwellian div & curl flux would be essential to both these complex space and energy patterns. In analogy we might imagine the charge patterns the bones and the accumulated fleeting Gre particles the flesh of all observable mass. A form of absolute space also seems essential to the rest mass vs. transient energy forms. All this is only conjectural to my previous Gre theory material where I left open the subtle charge issue, but I like it. I have no special claim to dabble into quantum characteristics other than how it might interface with my dynamic Gre theory behavior. However as noted, any attempt to marshal the many clues extant today may only help us to ponder our still inexplicable but very real universe.

Cosmology theories in general
Since my book has been out, in the popular literature and other web sources, I have become even more aware of many new bizarre, wild math complications of cosmology but also some complaints and conjectures similar to claims of my own: Only Now, times arrow, doubts on black-hole physics and maybe only Euclidian & Machian absolute space, are some of the few of interest. However while all these confirm my concerns on general cosmological problems, many are like snippets, ad hoc, and few are consistent sequences to attack the present modern consensus of Relativistic physics and if you like, the formidable Big bang scenario. That is the challenge and mine field for professional workers. Here I am less assertive and more interpretive.
And as grand as some of these ideas are, my work is closer to home. My concept of only Now including space, energy, mass (SEM) and Times arrow is powerfully confrontational to just space-time. My concept of a hierarchal Mass organization as the confinement of energy requirement at any named level of mass eg. namely a kernel of mass and any associated energy within that mass system, is not really a unique view except as a broad generalization. But it does argue what mass states reveal and consequently confronts the faulty aspects of black-hole physics. Yet it is also important to include these ideas into a larger scale framework.
If I were to try to conceive a universe on a large-scale, I would think the integral of all mass, energy, and space was constant, but that changes in these manifestations would be interchangeable and responsible for the dynamism of what we actually see. While the total integral of the MES (mass, energy, space) would remain a constant, mass and energy could exchange, yield gravity and combined would affect the Voc. Space expansion or contraction may have appearances as in the Hubble relationship with distance, yet the Einsteinian Voc appearing constant in different environments must be judged variable because of our physically questionable rulers. So I would still be inclined to think that there was some absolute Machian space these three variables fluctuate in. And the degree of fluxuation have some test of reasonableness. Among these, time is not an independent variable but only Now, dependant on the other three.
Yet, however functional over what duration, such a universe yields an evolution, which requires a beginning or being contained in some other cyclic pattern too big or long to recognize. But even that is an evolution on a larger scale. Therefore, there are always infinities and creations beyond science, which we cannot fathom. But where we can, beside hard tests of reality, one likes elegance and functional simplicity. I dislike conjectures like inflation, extra dimensions, imagined identities with notions that do not match real concepts like strings eg. massless but capturing energy only like a physical string in tension really can. I like Euclidean space, therefore I perceive light refracting and slowing. I am encouraged to think the gravitational field must have ponderability eg. equivalent to mass and hidden to some degree by the horrendous E/m ratio as in E=mc2 and as captured in the idea of phlogiston previously described.
Electromagnetism is so essential to stable mass and so pervasive at any scale while distinctly related to SEM. As a fluid flux with div & curl and the constructive/destructive association between energy (a Voc flux) and mass (confined energy) - there seems a relationship we must further ponder. Now I want to know, just like photon to positronium creation or annihilation, what about photon to quark to proton creation and annihilation. Are there x-ray photons of that magnitude and environments sufficiently energetic and what of a single quark half-life to meson half-life of adequate duration to accomplish a stable proton. Both the creation to any stable mass and its destruction must satisfy what is known on the complex character of quarks, and while it may have a parallel with an electron/positron pair, it is a good deal subtler including interactive triplets and fractional charge. There is some feeling that these differences (including Kayon decay with CP violation) give another justification favoring our mass positive universe. For example, not essentially instant annihilation as in the BB but environment specific as in Galactic jets. See Fig 5 Cygnus A radio galaxy.
I was never in any position to judge the superiority of the HBN cosmology (2000), a challenge of Sir Fred Hoyle et al. against the BB, Big bang consensus, when even with their prestige and mathematical horsepower, they had dubious impact. And even if it was just a BC, cyclic Big crunch over the BB, that’s pretty mild to the present multi-dimensional, multi-universes, quantum complications generated 6 ways from Sunday, most as flippant with wild computer math and fantasy as occurs in the kid’s play-stations.
So without declaring any specific cosmology model, essentially three: BB, cyclic BC or an Endless steady state, where the latter is effectively a BA, Big appearance because it must account for the evolutionary features we observe which the other two yield in different ways. I would not favor any of these models over another but prefer a local Newtonian/Euclidian MES universe integrated outward to whatever best fits the observations, maybe a perspective deserving its own recognition including alternative views to larger themes.
SEM vs. MES? Cosmologically SEM is probably the best hierarchy – space the place, energy the elephant in the room and mass the product of it all. But MES is more historical – mass being the first relevance, energy its dynamism and space the after thought in which all is contained and the last appreciated. That’s why I think the acronym NEMES – Newtonian, Euclidian domain for this mass, energy, space is a justified catchy sequence – the Nemes Universe – looking out with the basics and try integrating all the possibilities we see. Multiple interpretations encouraged! The true story will never be a ‘slam dunk’.
While we like direct observables, imaginations like Gell-Mann’s quark theory is almost as solid as observables from the synthesis of so many other observables. I put faith in my Gre theory based similarly on so many other observables or paradox resolutions. And it can be a significant early epoch accelerator for an energy to mass condensation applicable to either a BB or BC cosmology. When all is said and done, the profound difference between mass and energy is gravitation and the Voc: energy confined or on the go. Truly, how many distinct parameters (concepts) can we have in and between space, time, mass and energy?

Anastopoulos, Charis, Particle or Wave, 2008, Princeton U. Press
Close, Frank, The New Cosmic Onion, 2007, Taylor & Francis
Hoyle, Fred, Burbidge, Geoffrey, Narlikar, Jayant, A different Approach to Cosmology, 2000, Cambridge Univ. Press (herein the HBN Universe)
Eberz, Noel, From Now to Dark Matter, 2008, iUniverse Press
Attachments:
Mass and Space fabric diagrams Fig 1-4
Cygnus A Radio galaxy interpretation Fig 5

 
Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology

Home | A Paradox | How Big? | Flat | D #s | H-B-N | Big Appearance? | The How of Now | Mass | Metaphysical | Gre | Anecdotes | Comparative Physics | Author | Contact | Tell a Friend |

© cosmic-concerns.com. All Rights Reserved.