Cosmological Variable

Cosmological variable

by Ross TESSIEN

cosmolo

SUMMARY Introduction

4

What

16

My 2

is

path

a

Crackpot?

to

these

Germination

of

an

Formulation

of

the

Acoustic The

force

trouble

22

concepts

36

idea

58

model

66

interactions

with

and

potential

of,

Sub-Atomic

structure,

electrons

Sub-Atomic

structure,

protons

The

nuclear

weak

interaction

Sub-Atomic

structure,

Sub-Atomic

structure

Conservation Mass

to

of

space

and

pions

in

Aether

general

and

conversion

Energy

ratio

Strings

72 78

neutrons

82 86 90 94 98 102

ogical variable

Expectations

and

observations

Spacetime Curvature Newborn

stars

due

to

Photon Flux

112 118 126

Type Ia Supernovae

136

Type II Supernovae

142

Topics

152

to

add

Calculations

154

3

cosmolo

Introduction: What This Site

is

About

This site explores a single, simple, new idea in theoretical physics.

The idea is that no object can reach out across any distance of space, to “pull” on any other object. What if that was a law of nature? What if that is how nature actually works? Might there be a way to construct our ideas of physical law that conforms to this seemingly impossible idea?

4

The idea seems at first glance to obviously be wrong and impossible to apply to our real universe. Everyone has experienced the earth pulling them down. Nearly everyone has experienced a magnet pulling on steel or other magnets. And most in any field of science have experienced the attraction force between positively and negatively charged objects.

Rub a balloon on your hair and see how it is attracted to and sticks to a wall.

Our common experience seems to clearly tell us that exploring such a concept would be fruitless. We see, in many situations, object A accelerating toward object B in accordance with a force of attraction law that we have formulated, mathematically.

One could reasonably, therefore, adopt the stance that reading this book will be interesting only from the point of view that reading science fiction about impossible universes can be interesting. So let’s simply begin by adopting that this book tells a story about an impossible universe and continue forward for fun and for a few laughs at how preposterous the concepts that fall out of the quest turn out to be.

To give the scientists reading this a peek into where we will head, let me say that the only way to make the above supposition work (that I have found at least) is to adopt the idea that matter consists not of particles with force fields, but rather that they consist of regions within the quantum vacuum where the medium of the vacuum itself is vibrating in specific ways. An electron for instance will be treated as a spherical standing wave vibration within, and of, the quantum vacuum medium, whatever that is.

ogical variable

Like a continuous series of concentric circular waves emanating from a fishing bobber pulled up and down on a mirror flat lake, the electron we will discuss *IS* the wave structure and it extends over vast distances with a tightly focused center at the Planck scale of 10^-35 meters. We could translate between current models and the wave model by equating the center of the standing wave with what today we call, the “particle”, or “where the particle is”. We could also equate the outer regions of the standing wave with what we today call, the “force field” of the particle. The “negative charge” of the electron simply equates to the “waves expanding from and coverging into” the center of the electron, modeled as a spherical standing wave.

The electric force field of the electron then reduces to being the structure of waves. It isn’t obvious what property of a spherical standing wave might stand in for property “mass” in particle physics?

5

That is, until one realizes that “a quantity of the One model for an Electron in Spacetime medium” itself seems to fit what we know mass to be. A spherical standing wave will compress and concentrate the medium within which it is a wave, in the inner regions of, the standing wave. The same medium that fills empty space might be compressed in a resonance within that ocean of medium to a greater density than it normally has in, “empty space”. In other words, as we approach the center of a spherical standing wave in a medium, the density of the medium increases due to the convergence, which drives a compression of the medium.

And if the density of the medium increases in the inner regions of a standing wave, then a box with a standing wave in it, will have more medium inside than will an identical

Introduction: What This Site

is

About

cosmolo

box without a standing wave inside. In other words, “mass” corresponds to the extra amount of aether in the box that has the standing wave inside. And that’s where the ideas in this discussion part company with all past aether theories. That mass corresponds to a quantity of the medium filling what we call “empty space” has an observable consequence.

Today, mass is thought of as another form of energy. We call the transformation process, “mass to energy conversion”, and talk about “the equivalence of mass and energy”. One thing you have likely never heard of is the concept of “mass to space conversion”.

6

You never hear about the idea that fusion reactions emit the mass, which becomes a new patch of space between the separating particles, and the emission and inflation of that tiny patch of space is the mechanism that accelerates the product particles of the reaction to a higher energy, which we later measure in our detectors. Instead, what one hears is that mass is another form of energy. So that when mass disappears, it is because energy appeared. One is transformed into the other.

In the aether / acoustic universe, we must conserve the medium in all reactions. We must also conserve energy in all reactions. And so if mass corresponds to an amount of the medium filling the universe, that was compressed in a matter standing wave, then fusion reactions must emit space, or to be more precise, the medium filling space which some call “quintessence”, others call “nothing”, and still others call “aether”.

The volume of space created in a single or a few particle reactions is vanishingly small and in the laboratory we would probably never be able to detect it. But in the cosmos, stars and galaxies of stars drive fusion reactions in tremendous numbers. There, we just might notice some unusual and unexpected things.

And, what’s great about this idea is that if we don’t, then it’s likely that the entire notion of matter waves and mass to space conversion is wrong. In other words, these ideas might actually be novel and falsifiable. We may be able to test them to prove them wrong, something few radical or crackpot ideas can claim.

ogical variable

It turns out, as I’ll show, that there are mysterious things going on in each and every place one tries to apply the new idea. And in that, the concept has become fodder for this book.

So I assert that mass, in an acoustic universe, can be thought of as being a portion of what we think of as the quantum vacuum, or “empty space”, or “aether”, or “quintessence” (pick your favorite term as a rose by any other name is still a rose), that has become compressed and confined into the interior of the standing wave we’ve adopted as our “particles”. That same medium must fill the entire universe so that our standing waves have an ocean of medium within which they can exist as, standing waves.

7

To work with a standing wave model for matter, we need to transform our thinking from “empty vacuum of space” to “continuous, full, ocean within which waves of all manner exist including what we call today, particles, force fields, photons, and spacetime. If we really want to push things, we’ll recall that our brains are made of these atoms and exist within our universe, and so thoughts must also be some complicated four dimensional structure of waves. But that’s fodder for another book.

At any rate, each of the above concepts has a parallel within the wave universe. Each consists of some structure of waves with geometries and motions we can potentially deduce from their behaviors and interactions. We can potentially contemplate geometries and find that an electron is a spherical standing wave, a photon is a smoke ring like vortex, a proton is a cluster of spherical standing waves with specific phase related spherical (muon) resonances like a tight cluster of grapes, and even spacetime must be a knowable structure of standing waves permeating the entire vast ocean of the universe.

And in that is the “rub”. If we are going to adopt that mass corresponds to a quantity of the medium filling the universe that was compressed or condensed into the interior of a standing wave, then we have made an addition to this new idea that can be tested and proven wrong.

Basically, the above states that all exothermic reactions emit space. All reactions that we currently think convert mass into energy, are as well, emitting spacetime or empty space.

Introduction: What This Site

is

About

cosmolo

This statement will tweak the brains of most that read it. We think of empty space as, well, nothing. So how can you “emit” nothing and notice?

8

First of all, we need to get rid of the idea that empty space is nothing and replace it with the idea that it is an ocean filled with a medium. Through the ocean of medium, a wide variety of waves can advance, each in a manner consistent with the type, or geometry, of wave being considered. We can think in terms of common experience on earth in our atmosphere to glean a little bit of intuition. This won’t be an exact comparison, but it will help get the brain cells working to grasp the new idea.

If I take a tank filled with compressed air and an empty plastic bag, I can blow the compressed air out of the tank into the bag and watch it fill up. If I take a moment to ponder what just happened I will realize that the plastic of the bag really isn’t doing anything aside from showing me a boundary between the air that fills our atmosphere, and the air that was previously inside the tank. As long as the bag is limp, the pressure inside and outside are the same. The bag allows me to see, with my own eyes, the volume of air that flowed out from inside the tank.

But what happened to the air of our atmosphere that used to occupy the space that is now occupied by the air inside the plastic bag? The answer is of course simple. The atmosphere was displaced, pushed aside by the air that came out of the compressed air tank.

For a larger example of the same process we can just watch a video of the Space Shuttle taking off of the launch pad. Those huge billowing clouds of exhaust used to be solid and liquid rocket fuel, contained inside the fuel tanks of the craft. Again, the earth’s atmosphere has been pushed aside by the emissions. We can see with our own eyes that the atmosphere was pushed away, displaced. And we also see that the space craft increased in it’s kinetic energy as a result.

Pushed aside means, pushed away from the location of emission in every direction. Esoterically, after launch, the earth’s atmosphere has a larger volume of gas filling it. The height of the atmosphere increases. The pressure at sea level increases. Of course, the

ogical variable

degree to which any man made event changes the atmosphere is so vanishingly small that we do not notice. But we have measured infrasound pressure waves launched from explosions and other similar events. In other words, it really does happen, and the earth’s atmosphere really is pushed aside by the emissions.

Mentally we can see that it must happen as even with the plastic bag, the amount of air filling the atmosphere changed, increased, after we filled the bag with air. And of course if we then flip on the compressor motor and put the air back into the high pressure tank, we have reduced the size of the atmosphere in the reverse process.

So what? Well, physicists (and especially astrophysicists) no doubt noticed many words back that the statement that exothermic reactions emit spacetime was a radical, assertion.

It is a statement that by all we know, has to be wrong. There is no counterpart for this idea in current physics. And in that, there is a chance we might be able to find examples in the universe to choose between the two different ideas.

9

If the statement is correct, then what we think of as empty space must, in some manner, via some mechanism, flow out of stars. Space must flow out of galaxies of stars. Space must flow into black holes. Space must flow into a supergiant star when its iron core crumbles into neutrons. Certainly, if space flows, someone would have noticed.

My study has convinced me that they have, in every case. But they don’t have the new idea to understand what they see through their telescopes and instead, try to make the observations fit the theories they know work so well in a vast array of situations.

Current thinking has it that about 23 percent of the universe consists of Dark Matter, 72 percent or so consists of Dark Energy and just 5 percent is made up of things we actually see, touch, and feel. I contend that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are phantoms created by a subtle hole our theories. They result from ways that spacetime, or empty space, moves combined with our lack of the concept that empty space can, move.

In other words, if space flows out of stars and galaxies, then the matter we observe might

Introduction: What This Site

is

About

cosmolo

be 100 percent of what is there, rather than the current 5 percent that results if we instead believe our theories are fully correct. The dark matter problem in galaxies might be due to the way the outward flow of space, slows, as it exits the stars within the galaxy emitting space.

10

And the Dark Energy problem in astrophysics might be a similar thing. Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe might simply be our noticing the effect that the emission of space (from all stars in all galaxies across the entire universe over the entire age of the universe) is having on the way the universe expands. The unknown dark matter and dark energy might not be things in themselves. They might be artifacts of our attempt to apply our theories that don’t account for the flow of space out of mass to space conversion reactions in the centers of stars.

For the physicist, I’m over simplifying things here and the concepts “empty space” or “quantum vacuum” are different from the concept “spacetime” in the acoustic universe.

But I haven’t conveyed enough detail yet to make that distinction so I’m being sloppy with term usage to ease the reader into these new concepts as our current thinking doesn’t truly distinguish these ideas in any physical sense.

While this may sound dramatically far from any theories we currently hold to be valid, it really isn’t. We now hold that spacetime can curve. This comes from General Relativity and it works fantastically in a lot of places. The curvature of spacetime causes planets like Mercury to move in ways they otherwise wouldn’t. It causes light passing by a star or black hole to curve. It is responsible for the way planets orbit a star like our sun.

If I take a tank filled with compressed air and an empty plastic bag, I can blow the compressed air out of the tank into the bag and watch it fill up. If I take a moment to ponder what just happened I will realize that the plastic of the bag really isn’t doing anything aside from showing me a boundary between the air that fills our atmosphere, and the air that was previously inside the tank. As long as the bag is limp, the pressure inside and outside are the same. The bag allows me to see, with my own eyes, the volume of air that flowed out from inside the tank.

ogical variable

But what happened to the air of our atmosphere that used to occupy the space that is now occupied by the air inside the plastic bag? The answer is of course simple. The atmosphere was displaced, pushed aside by the air that came out of the compressed air tank.

For a larger example of the same process we can just watch a video of the Space Shuttle taking off of the launch pad. Those huge billowing clouds of exhaust used to be solid and liquid rocket fuel, contained inside the fuel tanks of the craft. Again, the earth’s atmosphere has been pushed aside by the emissions. We can see with our own eyes that the atmosphere was pushed away, displaced. And we also see that the space craft increased in it’s kinetic energy as a result.

11

Pushed aside means, pushed away from the location of emission in every direction. Esoterically, after launch, the earth’s atmosphere has a larger volume of gas filling it. The height of the atmosphere increases. The pressure at sea level increases. Of course, the degree to which any man made event changes the atmosphere is so vanishingly small that we do not notice. But we have measured infrasound pressure waves launched from explosions and other similar events. In other words, it really does happen, and the earth’s atmosphere really is pushed aside by the emissions.

Mentally we can see that it must happen as even with the plastic bag, the amount of air filling the atmosphere changed, increased, after we filled the bag with air. And of course if we then flip on the compressor motor and put the air back into the high pressure tank, we have reduced the size of the atmosphere in the reverse process.

So what? Well, physicists (and especially astrophysicists) no doubt noticed many words back that the statement that exothermic reactions emit spacetime was a radical, assertion.

It is a statement that by all we know, has to be wrong. There is no counterpart for this idea in current physics. And in that, there is a chance we might be able to find examples in the universe to choose between the two different ideas.

If the statement is correct, then what we think of as empty space must, in some manner, via some mechanism, flow out of stars. Space must flow out of galaxies of stars. Space

Introduction: What This Site

is

About

cosmolo

must flow into black holes. Space must flow into a supergiant star when its iron core crumbles into neutrons. Certainly, if space flows, someone would have noticed.

12

My study has convinced me that they have, in every case. But they don’t have the new idea to understand what they see through their telescopes and instead, try to make the observations fit the theories they know work so well in a vast array of situations.Current thinking has it that about 23 percent of the universe consists of Dark Matter, 72 percent or so consists of Dark Energy and just 5 percent is made up of things we actually see, touch, and feel. I contend that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are phantoms created by a subtle hole our theories. They result from ways that spacetime, or empty space, moves combined with our lack of the concept that empty space can, move.

In other words, if space flows out of stars and galaxies, then the matter we observe might be 100 percent of what is there, rather than the current 5 percent that results if we instead believe our theories are fully correct. The dark matter problem in galaxies might be due to the way the outward flow of space, slows, as it exits the stars within the galaxy emitting space.

And the Dark Energy problem in astrophysics might be a similar thing. Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe might simply be our noticing the effect that the emission of space (from all stars in all galaxies across the entire universe over the entire age of the universe) is having on the way the universe expands. The unknown dark matter and dark energy might not be things in themselves. They might be artifacts of our attempt to apply our theories that don’t account for the flow of space out of mass to space conversion. In short, General Relativity works essentially perfectly every where it is applied‌ right? Wrong. If I look through a telescope at the way a spiral galaxy rotates, the stars at increasing distances from the center of mass of the galaxy orbit with the same circular velocity as do stars at smaller radii within the galaxy. Even gas, ten galactic radii further out than the stars are still rotating at the same large circular velocity.

If the mass within the galaxy is what we see and can deduce from studies using telescopes, then there is dramatically too little mass to account for the motions that General Relativity (or Newtonian mechanics) predicts. The observation would be like seeing Pluto orbit

ogical variable

with the same circular velocity as Earth or Mercury……it doesn’t. The further a planet is from the sun, the slower its velocity around the sun. It also has a longer path to take on each orbit. But the key point is that the velocity of Pluto is far slower than the velocity of Mercury.

This observation of spiral galaxies and many others leave us with a problem and we must make a choice. We can ponder the possibility that the theory we use to describe gravitation is in some small way wrong. If we take this path, we need to find some modification to our gravity theory so that we predict what we in fact see.

Alternately, we can assume that our gravitational theory is correct. If we do this and we observe the galactic motions... then we deduce that there must be a bunch of extra mass filling the galaxy. This is the path that was taken, and the name assigned to the missing mass is “Dark Matter”. Today, the amount of dark matter that must be out there has been determined, as has where it must be.

13

From there, astrophysicists sought to measure how rapidly the universe was slowing down under the attractive force of gravity. To their horror two independent teams discovered at the same time, that the universe was in fact, speeding up. If gravity is a force that reaches out and pulls things, attractively, toward one another then the expansion should be slowing down. So the result was shocking. The experiments were set up to measure the rate at which the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Instead, they found that the universe was speeding up. Gravity can’t do that.

To explain what we observe there was yet again, either something wrong with our theory of gravitation or there was another component within our universe that we hadn’t previously realized. Enter, “Dark Energy”. Since it had to be some sort of unknown energy, and because we already had the glaring Dark Matter problem on the table, Dark Energy seemed an obvious label to use.

So we are now in the heat of the kitchen with all burners blazing. Decades of effort have failed to uncover what these dark things are and they are considered to be the most im

Introduction: What This Site

is

About

cosmolo

portant problems in physics today. A few intrepid theorists have posited that our theory of gravitation is wrong. One such theory is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND. This theory has some very interesting attributes and fits the observed motions of several systems of stars. But it is, admittedly, an ad hoc mathematical model that was fit to the observations, not a theory born of some fundamental new idea that required it.

Further, MOND only addresses Dark Matter. Adopting it won’t solve the Dark Energy problem.

14

The vast majority of theorists are in pursuit of Dark things, confident that both dark energy and dark matter really exist and it is up to us to figure out what they are and how they fit into the rest of our theoretical framework. The quest for dark matter and darkenergy has entered an interesting stage where few question their existence any more.

It is assumed they exist and that we just don’t know what they are. This is entirely reasonable. It is also assumed that gravity is a force of attraction as has been the case since Newton. And this too is entirely reasonable.

However, there has always been a different way to solve the problem. If the observations of ways our universe works that led to the ideas, Dark Energy and Dark Matter, are in reality caused by ways that space can flow, then perhaps neither truly exists and we are just noticing the breeze of flowing space that all stars and galaxies live within. Like a thistle frond floating on a breeze, hovering here, accelerating that way, spiraling in an eddy within the local atmospheric motions, perhaps the same is happening to stars and galaxies in the universe we live within.

Perhaps dark matter is just an idea, born from our noticing the way space is moving around a galaxy or in a cluster of galaxies. Perhaps dark energy is just a measure of the way the entire “atmosphere” of the universe aka the quantum vacuum, is behaving at an epoch of its evolution. Like clouds blown by the flow of air, perhaps stars and galaxies are also blown by winds moving around our universe, about which we have no concept.

Without the concept, we try to fit what we see into the framework we have. But they don’t fit.

So we need to question our theories, or our observations. One is wrong or incomplete.

ogical variable

And we have adopted that our theories are correct and our observations are incomplete.

This book pursues a new set of ideas that seem to require that space can flow as well as curve. If correct, and if one can find a way to calculate HOW space flows, then perhaps one day we will compute the velocity we expect stars to have in the outskirts of galaxies, and it will be the same as what we see stars actually doing. Dark matter and dark energy may go the way of the Ptolemaic epicycles, if we can shift our model of the universe from having the Earth at the center, to placing the sun at the center where the planet motions suddenly make sense.

These are not simple concepts to grasp. And I am not skilled enough to convert them into a mathematical theory. What I can and will do, is to convey the ideas along with a number of observations that have been made that I feel seem to fit a single, rather simple, pattern.

15

Exothermic reactions like fusion in stars, emit spacetime. And endothermic reactions such as splitting iron nuclei into neutrons, or the flow of stuff into a black hole, consume spacetime from the surrounding universe. This is similar to the idea that air flowing out of the compressor, drives the expansion of our atmosphere, and air being compressed into the compressor tank by its pistons, is similar to the idea that endothermic reactions and black holes have space flowing into them.

In short, if space can flow, then it is very possible that there isn’t any dark energy and there isn’t any dark matter. What we see, is what’s out there. But the stuff we are peering through, “empty space” isn’t nothing and can itself, move under certain situations.

Even if these ideas are wrong, they are interesting. And perhaps more important, they are different and they are in conflict with our current way of thinking. If they were simply a different way of looking at what we know, they would be worthless. But because they lead us to new expectations and especially because we can reasonably test those new expectations, they are interesting no matter how poorly I manage to communicate them.

Introduction: What This Site

is

About

cosmolo

What

is

a

Crackpot ?

Why bother wasting time in this book to contemplate what a crackpot is? Well, perhaps I shouldn’t. However, if we understand what a crackpot is, then we can also recognize what a crackpot is not. In other words, it is easy to extrapolate from the above chapter that I am very far out on a limb of the crackpot tree. I admit with a satirical glee that I am a crackpot. Galileo was a crackpot for contending the earth rotated around the sun and that Jupiter had orbiting moons.

16

Being a crackpot or a genius is a matter of whether one’s ideas have become accepted or not, at least that’s the case when the ideas are truly radical…………and of course, whether they are later found to be correct. This, then, becomes one of the driving motivations for any crackpot. They might be a genius. All they need is to refine their ideas some unknown, “little” bit further and then the world will see and comprehend what until then, only they could grasp.

I can’t prove my ideas are correct. But I have also tried, and failed to prove they are wrong. The strong favorite is that I am a crackpot and that the examples I found are just coincidental and have tricked me into thinking there’s something interesting going on.

I am writing this book in large part because of the way I came upon the concepts. So I am going to spend a little time talking about my journey as it is interesting to me that there are some very different paths to becoming a crackpot. Understanding the differences might help scientists to know who might be worth taking a moment to listen to.

And it might help genuine (incorrect in their ideas) crackpots to realize there’s more out there than they are accounting for.

If we learn what the pattern of “crackpot” looks like, then we will also be able to notice places where an individual, deviates from the norm. And if there’s enough difference, then perhaps there just might be, a difference. So let’s just take a short walk through the thought patterns and process of becoming a crackpot.

ogical variable

First of all, crackpots tend to have limited knowledge of science. That said, there are plenty of PhD holders that fit the mold. For this reason, they tend to become aware of the greatest mysteries facing science during their time. This is easily understood because only the greatest mysteries are well enough publicized for them to encounter them. They are also the subject of fanciful thought and discussion both by the scientists of the day and by the arm chair crackpot scientists.

The vast majority of crackpots today quickly get to how their ideas solve something that Einstein did wrong. There is a certain sense of accomplishment that arises when one can solve something that baffled Einstein. I know this first hand by the way so I’m speaking about myself as much as about other crackpots.

To novice crackpots, the term is demeaning. To veteran crackpots, it is a badge of honor akin to the Black Sheep Squadron, or the Skunk Works that produced some of the world’s best aircraft in unorthodox ways. A veteran crackpot has enthusiasm and has spent countless hours researching their ideas and fitting them to observations made by leading scientists.

The path to becoming a crackpot virtually always goes something like this. Someone takes a cursory interest in some area of science. Often this is an area making a lot of headlines in the popular press, for example, Dark Energy and Dark Matter today. They learn about a problem from the world leading scientists themselves in some expose to the popular press. After all, scientists need to communicate with the average person in order that their research projects get funded by the legislators who are themselves, average people (in terms of scientific background that is).

The crackpot now knows about the mystery and is intrigued. Perhaps talking to others, perhaps on their own, they ponder and look into the issue at length. The most intelligent of these seekers manage to come up with some interesting new way of looking at the universe we live in such that the laws of nature need to be modified in some way, perhaps small and perhaps large.

What

is

a

Crackpot?

17

cosmolo

They think about this new idea at length and to become a true crackpot, they arrive at a place where they believe in their idea. At this point a transformation takes place in their psyche. There is no longer a need to test the idea. Instead, they search for evidence that will prove their ideas correct, and cease looking for things they have done wrong. The most dedicated crackpots gather reams of information and assemble it so that they can see how their idea solves the riddle facing science that interests them.

18

What’s important here is to notice that they have found a way of thinking that fits the observations. And they assemble those observations that fit their way of thinking. They do not seek out observations that do not fit. And when they do find any discordant observations, they tend to not understand it or discard it as an anomaly that will later need to be explained by someone with more skill.

I should point out here that scientists also invent crazy ideas and are themselves crackpots as far as the above description is concerned. By the above definition, the majority of the astrophysical community today, are crackpots, seeking to prove that dark matter and dark energy exist. You will find precious little discourse about the possibility that our theories are what have the error in them. Science always holds fast to the best theories, and discounts observations.

At any rate, scientists do take the step of proving their ideas (or the ideas of anyone else) are wrong, seriously. They invest great effort working to prove their ideas are wrong.

And only when they fail at that, do they propose the new concepts. Normally, the new concept is presented as a set of new equations. MOND, for example, presents equations that eliminate the dark matter problem. But it doesn’t eliminate the dark energy problem, and there is no rationale to lead one to believe MOND ought to be how things work prior to knowing that it does.

At any rate, somewhere around the point when the crackpot has the idea and it seems to fit into a great number of observations, as viewed through his or her colored glasses, they come to feel a mix between “desire for recognition” and “desire to help humanity by disclosing their solution to the mystery”. They want recognition for their efforts, but they also want to help out those struggling scientists that are baffled by what is so easy

ogical variable

to comprehend based on the new ideas the crackpot has created. So they venture off to share their idea with scientists and perhaps they attempt to write something up in the scientific literature.

Their publications virtually always have serious flaws in them and are not published. Rejected, the crackpot becomes bitter that the scientific community doesn’t have a mechanism for them to present their information and solve a big mystery.

Because the above path is so fun to walk, a lot of people with a modicum of scientific interest have walked it. And scientists within any realm of science have encountered a great number of crackpots. They encounter so many crackpots that it alters the psyche and demeanor of the scientists themselves. They become acutely wary of anyone they meet that has the slightest glimmer of crackpotism.

Scientists tend to stare at someone, ponder how to answer things longer than most, and run scared as quickly as possible the instant they realize the person before them is, a crackpot. I mean this quite literally. A scientist might talk about their field to someone that doesn’t understand and enjoy the experience. But if the person thinks they have solved a mystery and wants the scientist to listen, the scientist will, 9 out of 10 times or so, run.

I went to a conference for the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a satellite that watches the sun 24/7, in Northeast Harbor, Maine. I think it was in 2000, five years after first coming to the ideas in this book.

I did my best to avoid telling others what I was working on. Rather, I was there trying to learn about things they had observed that might test my ideas adding to or subtracting from their “correctness quotient” in my head. Inevitably everyone asked, within minutes of meeting, who I was and what I was doing at the conference. Several seconds later a typical response would be to stop me mid sentence with, “I need to go over there”, a quick turn without so much as a “nice to meet you” or “good luck” and poof, they were gone.

I am not exaggerating here. I experienced that sort of reaction many times there and elsewhere.

What

is

a

Crackpot?

19

cosmolo

Anyway, the crackpot encounters that sort of reaction in 8 out of 10 scientists they meet.

The other two are more courteous and perhaps 1 even shows some genuine interest if the ideas are themselves interesting. I had a few people at the conference sit down and discuss the solar cycle and ways the model I was developing led me to some interesting expectations that I was at the conference testing with their latest observations.

20

I considered I did well with a 2 out of 10 hit rate of interested scientists who sat down with me for half an hour or more to talk about how the ideas I was working on might be at play in their research area. And one who was initially dismissive wound up on the same 10 seater commuter plane back to Boston and apologized for his dismissal the day before and offered to listen during the flight. The noise of the twin prop, though, made it impossible to carry on a meaningful discussion. But that was fine. I hadn’t gone there to share my ideas. I had gone to learn about new things they were discovering about the way the sun works, so mission accomplished.

I should also point out that a few theorists have taken the time to listen for an hour or two. Steve Carlip at UC Davis was one who nicely agreed to meet with me to discuss the concepts in around 1999 I think it was. And I learned how to pose questions on the physics research forum so they wouldn’t be screened as crackpot fodder after finally getting connected to the Internet. I quit trying to convey the ideas and instead just focused on asking questions that would probe the issue of the day.

Few crackpots learn that method so that most complain no one will listen to them. It’s a conspiracy of course, to prevent anyone without a PhD from contributing. Or so goes the thinking of a crackpot.

The fact is that good scientists are confronted by so many crackpots that they just don’t have time to deal with them. And many crackpots have a psyche akin to a stalker. The minute a scientist answers a first question, out of kindness, the crackpot insistently poses 3 more. There is no end to the questions or discussion. If the crackpot gets an email address, a flood of emails often ensues. Often the last few are rants about how the scientist isn’t open to hearing the solution to the biggest mystery facing science. So from the point of view of the scientist, it’s best to just be a bit rude up front and avoid all the

ogical variable

hassle later on.

I think the one fact that fits perhaps 99.99 percent of all crackpot theories is that they learned about the mystery first, and came up with the solution second.

The reason I’m writing this is because I did the opposite. I was considering a crazy idea I thought would lead no where. I stumbled upon a way for things to make a bit of sense.

And then later on, I realized that if my ideas were correct, there was a key difference between my ideas and current physical concepts that I could test. I could prove them wrong. So I tried‌ to prove them wrong.

21

What

is

a

Crackpot?

cosmolo

My Path

to

These Concepts

I want to put down the path I walked to come to these ideas as they are to me at least, interesting. The aspect of my path that pleases me most, is the fact that I came up with the new model, the solution, first. And only long after having come up with it, did I learn that there existed a mystery. In fact, in 1995 when I came up with the ideas, the Dark Energy mystery did not yet exist. The Dark Matter problem was in full swing. But I knew nothing about any of that. I hadn’t studied astrophysics, ever, and was ignorant of any problems existing in the field let alone that two huge problems were looming large.

22

It’s precisely because of this that I feel it might be worth the effort to convey the ideas rather than trash them outright. My take away is that the core concepts I’ve been studying for 17 years might just have some degree of merit and that theorists more skilled than I might want like to learn about them as an unusual way of thinking about our universe.

Further, based on these ideas it seems to me we ought to be able to construct some interesting new technologies in the future. Among them is a device that can use superconductors to thrust against spacetime. In other words, we might really be able to construct a thruster to power a flying saucer. It’s more a matter of “surfing” on spacetime waves, than a thruster in the sense of rocket engines that throw stuff out the tail pipe.

If I had funding, I’d be working to try to build it. But I don’t, so if I want to see levitation in my lifetime, as my grandparents saw flight in theirs, the ideas need to get out there so that more people get to work on it. There are a few hints that certain scientists have observed a slight modification to the gravitational “weight” of a suspended mass held over a spinning superconductor. Again, my ideas came first and my discovery of the effect came later.

And there also should be a way to manufacture a “worm hole” using a special craft that distorts spacetime in a particular way. It looks a little like the shock wave around a supersonic jet, but not quite the same and certainly not at all the same mechanism.

ogical variable

Anyway, if these ideas are right, then we are about to enter into a new era where travel to the moon is a couple hour flight. Mars would be an eight hour flight one way. And travel to Europa and the rest of the solar system, as well as nearby stars become feasible even before we conquer superluminal flight. I think that would be an interesting world to live in, so with luck, the ideas are right and someone able to take them from here to fruition happens upon reading about these ideas.

If the ideas are wrong, at least they are fun to ponder and ought to help the science fiction writers with some new concepts for how the future may appear.

The genesis of the entire work within this book stems from a simple statement my physics professor made at Diablo Valley Junior College in 1974.

We were learning about the forces of nature. One day he brought out two small steel blocks. He would show us something we hadn’t seen and ask, “What forces are at work in this example?” In the machine trade they are known as gauge blocks. They come in a set in a soft lined case to protect the mirror finishes on their ends. Each block is made to a precision length, for example, 1 inch plus or minus 50 millionths of an inch. That’s 1.000050” at the longest to 0.999950” at the shortest. They are used to calibrate micrometers and other measuring instruments.

He took the two blocks and squeezed their mirror faces together, twisting them a few times. Then, he positioned them vertically and held onto the upper block which supported the lower block. He was working to get our brains into the job of sorting out which force of nature was responsible for a behavior we observed. And since we had been studying gravity, and the lower block wasn’t falling like it should according to gravitational law, something else had to be at play, but what?

It took a while before we realized that the air pressure of our atmosphere was pushing upward on the bottom of the lower block. Air pressure is about 15 psi and the blocks were about a half inch squared area, so the force upward from air was about 7.5 pounds, much more than the weight of the lower block.

My

path

to

these

concepts

23

cosmolo

Because the mating surfaces were so smooth and flat, and because he squeezed them together wiping all of the air out from between them, there was no air pressure being applied to the upper face of the suspended (lower) block. The effect is just the same thing as a suction cup that sticks to a smooth ceiling surface and holds some small weight against the pull of gravity. The pressure exerted by our atmosphere was pushing the block up harder than gravity was pushing it down.

24

It was after all of that, that he tossed out what hit me like a bombshell. “OK”, he said, “what if we lived hundreds or a thousand years ago and saw this? We would be inclined to assert that two blocks with very flat surfaces exert a force of attraction toward one another. It would be a strange force of nature that wears off with time (due to air slowly leaking back in between the surfaces). So we would have a new force of attraction with a new behavior such that the force wears off with time.” I forget his name or would mention it here.

His point was that we have all these force equations we are going to learn. But the simple fact is, no one really knows “how” forces work. We know “how” they work in the sense that equations allow us to calculate and predict what will happen. But this is not the same thing as understanding “why” they work. Now what I’m saying here is easy to think you understood, but didn’t. So please think again carefully.

We know there are things in our universe that behave in the way electrons behave. We call them, well, electrons. But we do not know “why” there exist electrons in our universe. There is no reason, a priori, that our universe had to have electrons or protons or neutrons, it just does. We know electrons behave according to laws we explain using equations for the electric force interaction. We know electrons interact with gravitational forces. But we don’t truly know what a force field “is”. We only know what it does.

We know that objects fall toward the earth when dropped. But we don’t know what gravity is or what makes them fall the way they do. We can calculate how they will fall using the theory, but that doesn’t tell us about why they fall. A scientist may retort that spacetime curvature is what does it. But what is spacetime, let alone what, within our universe, physically changes within the geometry of spacetime when it curves.

ogical variable

We can say spacetime curves and we can assert how much curvature there is via the use of equations. But that tells us precisely nothing about the underlying nature of, spacetime. What is it? Why, does mass make it curve? What does “curve” here really mean?

Is there some physical curve in the shape of the quantum vacuum?

Because we really don’t know what gravity is, neither do we know whether gravity really acts by attracting one object to another. It is well established that the rate at which objects fall toward one another is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of how far apart they are. And because the objects we see with our eyes involved in the interaction appear to fall toward one another, we call this a force of attraction. We see object A, and object B, and they accelerate toward one another so we assert that object A and B “attract” one another.

But does every atom throughout the volume of the entire earth really have its own tiny rubber band pulling on every other atom nearby as well as throughout the solar system and throughout our galaxy and even reaching to every other atom in far away stars in far away galaxies? If you try to imagine that an atom in my hand is pulling on every atom in the sun, or in every atom in every star in the entire Milky Way galaxy, your brain will likely short circuit. Put the stars in motion and all those rubber bands ought to get tangled and snap. But gravity doesn’t, it works.

Claiming that the atoms in the earth don’t pull on our bodies doesn’t help. The claim of General Relativity that the atoms in the earth curve the spacetime our bodies are in, just sweeps the problem under a seemingly acceptable carpet. The problem is still there, though. How do all the atoms in the earth reach out and imprint a curvature on the fabric of spacetime within which our bodies or our spacecraft exist? The core problem remains, and most everyone just takes the easy path and adopts that the objects we observe are pulling on one another via a force of attraction.

Our concept of attraction is so much a part of our psyche, we’ve forgotten that it is a strange idea to have ever adopted. We believe our muscles pull. We believe positive and negative charged particles pull, or attract. We believe stars attract one another. We be

My

path

to

these

concepts

25

cosmolo

lieve protons and neutrons attract one another. We believe magnets attract one another.

We believe in so many “attractive” interactions that to contemplate throwing that concept out the window is brain bending and immediately rejected by virtually everyone.

So we have come to be comfortable with the idea that forces of attraction exist within our universe. What is forgotten is that this belief was born from our ignorance about how forces actually work. In quantum mechanics, the idea that the way things work is “unknowable” is pounded into students as they study the bizarre ways the quantum world works.

26

But there is another player involved in every interaction. A player we never consider.

That player is the rest of the universe. All interactions are in reality, 3 object interactions.

All interactions, from nuclear to gravity, involve the two objects we happen to be studying, AND, the rest of the universe beyond those two objects.

What if gravity was a different interaction as Le Sage envisioned when Newton proposed his idea of gravitational attraction? What gravity works as an interaction with the noise filling the quantum vacuum? What if that noise, is what curves spacetime as a result of how the objects block or reflect a portion of the noise coming from one direction?

Perhaps the noise was left over from the big bang, or from vibrations of all of the matter in the rest of the universe. What if noise from fusion reactions in stars adds to the background noise filling the quantum vacuum? What if gravity is really a measure of how spacetime is curved due to the way nearby objects shield regions of spacetime from the noise of the surrounding universe? If this were so, then all objects that accelerate toward one another, all forces of attraction, would be due to the way those objects interact with the noise coming from the rest of the surrounding universe.

To understand where I’m going here, let’s consider gravity as it’s the easiest to grasp. What if I am pushed on from all sides by noise coming from the distant universe and permeating the quantum vacuum? And what if the earth filters out a tiny portion of that noise?

If that were the case, then I would be pushed down harder than I am pushed up because the earth blocked, or filtered, or reflected, a small percentage of that quantum vacuum

ogical variable

noise.

If this is how it works, then gravity should be thought of as a force that pushes nearby objects toward one another. We would think in terms of three players. The two objects we see, plus the remainder of the universe. The universe provides the push and the two objects neither push nor pull. It would just be that each object, according to the amount of mass is has, and where that mass is, shields the other object from the push of the universe in that direction. The two objects would then accelerate toward one another as a result of that push. The apple doesn’t fall in attraction toward the earth. Rather, the universe pushes the apple toward the earth. The universe pushes you against the earth.

There are some possible experiments that might speak to this by the way. But that’s beyond our present discussion so I’ll leave it for later.

OK, so what? Who cares? Whether we think of gravity as a push or a pull, the equations that describe how the objects will accelerate remain unchanged. Newton’s and Le Sage’s ideas for how gravity works were equivalent. The equations were the same. And it was simply a matter of aesthetic choice as to which we chose to adopt. We adopted the notion that gravity is a force of attraction. But this doesn’t mean that it in fact is.

Even advancing our understanding to General Relativity and spacetime curvature, the equations remain unchanged. We could think in terms of the object reaching out and altering the surrounding spacetime (as we do), or we could think in terms of the interaction of an object with waves permeating the universe which then become changed such that they result in the spacetime curvature predicted.

Either way, spacetime gets curved, the objects fall toward one another, and the equations are the same. The extension of the Le Sagian notion that the effect originates from the interaction of the objects with the rest of the universe is just that, a notion. And we have adopted that the interaction results from the two objects under study, not from the two objects plus the rest of the universe.

Think about this a bit. The equations won’t change based on the model we hold in our heads. We could think of gravity as a push, or we could think of it as a pull.

My

path

to

these

concepts

27

cosmolo

The for mula Newton derived, and which Einstein later derived for General Relativity still remain the same. So the idea we hold in our head won’t make any difference in our actions or experiments, right? Wrong.

If we had adopted Le Sage’s model for a push gravity when Newton presented his equations, this quest to measure how fast the universe was slowing down would never have happened. We still wouldn’t understand, really, the underlying nature of the gravitational force. But we would have the notion that things that are nearby are pushed toward one another by noise coming from the remainder of the distant universe.

28

So if we were going to explore the expansion of the entire universe, we would naturally expect that we might arrive at some very distant location where there was no noise, or less noise, coming from places within our universe that were even further away. There would be a reduction of noise coming from some directions as compared to others as we approach the edge of the universe. And if the noise from one direction were reduced, then objects would be pushed in that direction.

They would accelerate in that direction.

The experiment we would set up, then, would have as its goal, the determination of whether the universe was just coasting, or speeding up in its expansion as you approach the boundaries of the universe. Beyond some places in the universe, we ought to see matter speeding up in its rate of expansion precisely because we’ve arrived at a place where the noise coming from further toward the edge of the universe, is dropping.

The experiment we would launch, then, would be an attempt to measure whether there is an acceleration associated with any parts of the expansion of the universe. We would be looking for a gradient in the acceleration to try to discern the direction to the center of the universe, as well as to the exterior of the universe. Had we had that idea, then the results obtained by the two supernova research teams would have fit into our idea about what gravitation is and we would not have a Dark Energy mystery.

We would have found what we expected to find, an acceleration. And we would dig deeper into the acceleration as a function of direction out into the universe to try to discern

ogical variable

whether the acceleration we see was the same in all directions, or whether it was greater in some directions than in others.

The notion of whether gravity is a push, or a pull, does make a difference in how we think about the universe around us. It does make a difference in the experiments we set up and the results we expect to find. My point is that it is important both to discover the equations that describe a thing and to discover the underlying principles that gave rise to those equations. Today, we have myriad equations, but we do not understand the underlying principle for any of them. Worse, quantum mechanics teaches (often if not always) that the underlying structures are not knowable. And that shuts down the curiosity of the few that might otherwise have tried to figure out what the underlying principles and structures actually are.

So I was bothered by my professors discussion about the gauge blocks and pondered gravity as above. I also contemplated how I might replace the other forces of nature like the electric force, with a “pushing” model, to no avail. I could dream up a sort of Le Sage like push for gravity.

I imagined keno balls bashing around, or lottery balls bashing around as the background of the universe. And I could stretch that to two different kinds of stuff pushing to explain electric and gravitational “attractions”. But now, I had no mechanism with which to explain electric repulsion. I had quickly reached a dead end. That quandary drifted back into the dark recesses of my thinking as I moved on toward an eventual degree in mechanical engineering.

In 1986 I left 3M corporation to create a company of my own. I sat down upon arrival in Grass Valley, CA, with the goal of one patentable invention per day. After about 3 months and 100 possible products to create, I chose what seemed to be the best, a microwave switch matrix. It could preserve the microwave signals, improve on skew (time delay between adjacent signals), shrink a large cabinet of microwave switches into a bread box, and cut the cost from a couple hundred thousand dollars down to around $30k.

The box routed the electronic signals on flexible striplines, akin to how dot matrix and

My

path

to

these

concepts

29

cosmolo

ink jet printers have a flexible ribbon cable to carry signals to the printer head. But mine were a single conductor sandwiched between two ground planes to establish a good electrical impedance able to carry high frequency signals.

I got an order for a $30,000 machine from IBM, East Fishkill……..I’ll never forget that town’s name! Anyway, without venture funding I wasn’t able to take the product to fruition. Close to bankrupt I chose to hang on and settled down into a company that did contract machining and engineering design for new product development. I could try again later.

30

Helping customers with their new products, as well as creating some of my own, I kept an eye out for a big technology I might build a larger company around. I read Scientific American and Science News to keep up on advancements. Potentially a scientist would get some new technology to work in some field, but I might be able to find a different field within which to apply it in a new way. I had been trained in patent law by the 3M patent attorneys, whereas the typical scientist knows little to nothing about the patent arena. One of the technologies I was following back then was sonoluminescence.

Sonoluminescence is an amazing process where sound waves are driven into a container, typically filled with water. The sound waves are tuned to the resonant frequency of the container, often a simple chemistry lab spherical boiling flask with a neck for adding liquid. By just gluing a pair of piezo crystals to opposite sides of the flask and driving sound energy in at around 20kHz, the flask can be made to resonate in an expansion compression, or, “breathing” mode.

If you then trap a small micrometer sized bubble at the center of that acoustic anti-node, it will expand and implode on each acoustic cycle. The implosions are so violent that the little gas and vapor inside the bubble are heated to incandescence, they glow visibly. You can see a tiny bluish light like a star in the night sky. It had been estimated by Putterman at UCLA and others that the peak temperature might be in the 100,000 C range. That’s really really hot. The surface of the sun in comparison is around 7,000 C. So what? What might one do with a really hot, really tiny, bubble? Well, if you could get

ogical variable

the temperature up a lot higher you might be able to drive fusion reactions, that’s what. I imagined a fusion reactor unlike any being developed today, where 20,000 times a second, tiny flashes of fusion energy were released. And, the energy was released in phase and frequency match with the oscillator.

In other words, it was conceivable that you could get the sphere resonating. Then when it started driving fusion reactions, the energy released could take over driving the resonator.

This was the same as you do with your car. To start a car, you engage the starter motor to spin up the crank shaft and pistons until the pistons begin exploding the gas and air mixture inside. Then, you disengage the starter motor and the energy being produced drives the engine as well as the wheels and car. The fusion reactions might provide the energy to power the reactor, eliminating the key problem in fusion reactor design where the energy delivered is orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced by the fusion reactions in all current fusion reactors. Eliminating the input electrical energy by taking advantage of the fusion energy being produced would allow fusion to step onto the world energy production scene immediately. Further, because acoustic resonators are far less expensive than lasers or superconductor coils, it was conceivable that such a fusion reactor would be far less expensive to build. It would also solve one of the toughest problems for fusion reactors, namely, it provided a liquid to surround the fusion reactions and absorb the fusion heat energy being produced. This is known as the liquid “first wall problem”.

Fusion is a process where heavy hydrogen atoms (deuterium) combine to form helium atoms (yes, I know I’m simplifying here, we were going after DD and DT fusion reactions where the T would be formed during DD reactions). The fusion process not only changes the atomic structure, it also releases a lot of energy. The energy per reaction is tiny, but if you drive fusion in significant numbers of reactions you would have a fusion power plant and solve the world’s energy problems.

The fuel for fusion comes from water. Everyone, every where on the planet, has plenty of the fuel. One drop of heavy water is in every gallon of water (sea water, fresh water, it doesn’t matter). And, it is easy to separate out to fuel a fusion reactor. The planet has

My

path

to

these

concepts

31

cosmolo

enough fusion fuel to power mankind for millions of years. So the fuel is cheap and plentiful, and the reactors reasonably would be low cost, and the potential up side was the ability to go after the entire $2 trillion dollar energy market.

For this reason, the world spends a couple billion dollars per year building fusion reactors. One thing that is poorly understood by the general public is that we drive fusion all the time in numerous different kinds of devices. Fusion reactions, in the scheme of particle physics, are pathetically easy to drive. An atom smasher creates temperatures vastly hotter than is needed for fusion reactions.

32

So we don’t have fusion power plants not because we don’t know how to drive fusion reactions. We don’t have them because we don’t know how to build a machine that drives fusion reactions so efficiently that we supply the machine less energy than it releases in the number of fusion reactions they drive. To date, the electrical energy supplied has always been far greater than the fusion energy produced. The best reactors have reached break even, but the cost of those reactors is so high that building them for energy wouldn’t be economically feasible once you consider amortized cost of the machine.

That’s why acoustic fusion was so interesting. If fusion could drive the acoustic resonance, then the reactor would immediately produce net energy and become the first fusion power plant. It was also attractive because the equipment is so inexpensive.

Two of the world leading technologies for driving fusion reactors are the tokomak and the laser inertial confinement reactors. Both approaches are motivated by the potential to bite into the world’s two trillion dollar per year energy habit.

The tokomak uses superconducting coils to create intense magnetic fields that confine a hot plasma in the shape of a donut. The deuterium atoms can then undergo fusion reactions and release their energy and the resulting helium can be removed from the hot plasma along with supplying the plasma with fresh fuel. There are other issues like neutrons emission, capturing them in a lithium blanket of liquid to making some tritium and so on, but I’ll skip that for brevity.

ogical variable

Laser fusion uses a bunch of intense laser beams that are all focused and directed to shine on a tiny pea sized target filled with deuterium (and tritium, as DT fusion is easier than DD fusion). Anyway, the laser beams ablate the outer shell, vaporizing it explosively in a few billionths of a second. Like the recoil of firing a rifle, the pea sized target recoils away from its own outer shell. There is a void in the center not unlike the tiny bubble in the sonoluminescence process. So “recoiling away from the explosive ablating material” really means, “is driven intensely into the cavity at the center of the pea”.

All of the matter in the pea implodes and rapidly accelerates as it converges, same as with sonoluminescence. But there is a finite radial distance before the matter imploding inward from one side rams into the matter imploding inward from the other side. This convergence leads to an accelerating rate of acceleration, and tremendous velocities when the matter finally slams into itself at the center. Yes, the rate of acceleration, accelerates.

Like a shooting star in the night sky, when matter strikes matter at velocities higher than about 10 km/s, they hit with enough energy to make the matter glow. A shooting star is just a grain of dust slamming into the atmosphere at velocities of that order or higher. In sonoluminescence, the implosion velocities are up in that realm too. But with laser fusion implosions, they are in the 100 km/s and up realm.

Laser fusion implosions do in fact drive fusion reactions. It’s just that you spend a huge amount of energy charging the capacitors that fire the lasers, and you get a relatively tiny amount of energy out of the fusion reactions driven. The National Ignition Facility (NIF), at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), is working toward the goal of laser driven fusion energy production. They drive intense bursts of laser light into a target, and then the target implodes and drives intense bursts of fusion reactions.

Laser fusion is an amazing technology and I had the pleasure of touring NIF just before they began firing the lasers and conducting experiments. My visit took place while presenting a talk about the work we were then doing on sonoluminescence. I had realized that if the sonoluminescence implosions could be intensified a thousand fold or more, then the temperature could get up into the realm where fusion reactions begin to take

My

path

to

these

concepts

33

cosmolo

place.

My work in earnest on that technology with an eye toward creating a new company began in February 1995. In that month, Scientific American published the article by Seth Putterman. I thought that other mechanical engineers might read that article and get the idea of building a fusion reactor just as I had. So I entered an intense phase of jotting every conceivable idea into my lab journals for future patent efforts.

34

In the US, patent law gives ownership to the first to invent, rather than the first to file for a patent. So I endeavored to jot down a description of something that would in the future become valuable. In contrast to the 3 months of work that generated 100 patentable devices when I first moved to Grass Valley, this time in 6 months I filled about a thousand pages of journal notes.

At that point a friend, Steffen Frost, and I decided to try to get funding to pursue this technology. He and I had tried to start up a BBQ product business after he noticed that Los Angeles was going to effectively ban the use of lighter fluid. I came up with a chimney charcoal starter and we patented it, but the wording of the claims wasn’t good enough.

Weber BBQ sales force visited our booth at the Chicago Hardware Trade Show, and a year and a half later they got around the patent wording with an equivalent product and our quest was crushed.

So when the concept of sono fusion reactors was on the table, we were both excited to attempt it. The technology was tough, so at best this was an enormously high risk, and absurdly high potential return sort of endeavor. Venture capital firms liked the high return aspect, but the abnormally high risk aspect made finding funding very difficult.

And worse, at about that same time the Cold Fusion fiasco was in full force. Everyone we spoke with thought we were hawking a cold fusion company when in fact, we were working on a concept closely related to the laser hot fusion path at LLNL. We put a lot of effort into educating people that this was a hot fusion approach, potential investors and physicists alike.

ogical variable

He would work on raising funds, and I would work on studying fusion physics to improve the technology in preparation for having some funding to build things with. I also needed to prepare for the due diligence process where investors hire scientists to listen to the new technology concept to flesh out whether it might work, or whether the person talking is an inventor that doesn’t understand why their idea won’t work, or why there isn’t a market for it even if it does.

As an aside, one of the due diligence meetings set up later by one of our investors was with Bruce Tarter, a former director of LLNL. Dr. Tarter asked me questions, and I responded for almost two hours as the investor and another financial person listened in.

I think Dr. Tarter anticipated the meeting ending in about 15 minutes after fleshing out that I was working on a cold fusion technology. In contrast, the meeting eventually led to my making a presentation about our acoustic fusion concept at one of the LLNL (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) Skunk Works meetings in about 2003.

At any rate, it was during the summer of 1995 when I turned my attention from patentable things to studying fusion physics in preparation for due diligence. I was going to wind up talking to scientists (as described above with Dr. Tarter) that investors would ask to evaluate our technology. It was during this period of studying nuclear physics that I wound up falling into the path that would lead to me writing this book.

One day I recalled the thought that had bothered me about the nature of forces of attraction. I knew more things now, at 40 years old in 1995, than I did at 20 back at Diablo Valley College. In particular, I had been intensely studying how spherical oscillations work. I had my company doing machining and engineering work so I was able to take a large amount of time and focus on whatever I wanted.

So for a few hours, I thought, I’ll ponder what a universe might be like if I ban all attraction forms of interaction. Might there be a way, I wondered, to create a universe from first principles that looks just like the one we live in, but within which there exist only collisional sorts of interactions? In other words, might it be possible to imagine a universe that has no forces of attraction?

My

path

to

these

concepts

35

cosmolo

Germination

of

an

Idea

I quickly re-traced old steps and ran into the same road block that I had before. If you think of some sort of stuff randomly striking two objects, you can get a force like gravity.

But how do you then get a force of repulsion like repulsing magnets or electricity?

36

Then, I confronted an even more damning thought. How could you have a particle in a universe without a force of attraction? How could the inner regions of a particle that had a physical size larger than zero, hold onto the outer surface of itself without any force of attraction? The outer layer of a particle in this crazy universe would fly apart from the remainder inside, and then a next layer would fly away or float away, and so on until there was no longer a particle.

My first thought was to add a layer over the outside to keep the original outermost layer from flying off. But of course then this new layer would fly off. In my minds eye I added layer after layer until in a second or two of thought, my entire universe was black with the stuff of just one particle that filled the entire expanse of the universe. Clearly this didn’t match our universe. We have a lot more than one particle in our universe.

It was just a few more moments when I wondered what would happen if I just let it explode out into its surroundings. When I did that, it exploded out, and then recoiled and came back inward. I had images of atom bomb explosions in my head at the time and after the explosions outward going shock / pressure wave, there manifests a rarefaction and return wave that rushes back inward toward the now low pressure blast center. Anyway, I watched that outward explosion and inward recompression turn into a spherical oscillation in my minds eye.

I’m sure it went that way due to having just spent months studying spherical oscillations and vibrating bubbles in sonoluminescence technologies. But regardless, by shifting from the idea “particle” to the idea “spherical resonance” I had a “new” (to me) model I could work with to study the way one might construct a universe without forces of attraction.

And I had some technical and theoretical tools with which to dissect the concepts.

ogical variable

From my study of cavitation bubbles I had learned about a pseudo force called the Bjerknes force where two oscillating bubbles will influence each other. To keep things simple, if two bubbles oscillate in phase with one another, they repulse one another. If they oscillate phase opposite to one another, they “attract” one another. And if they oscillate phase orthogonal (90 degrees) from each others oscillation, they have a “neutral” interaction.

This was amazing progress. It was all in fun with no goal or agenda. I was just playing around conceptually with some ideas, void of any expectation they would be anything more than a distraction that would get me thinking about some interesting technical things that were relevant to the sonofusion quest.

By adding the Bjerknes interaction to the previous interaction of shielding (attenuation, reflection), I now had a model for the gravitational force as well as for both attraction and repulsion via the electric force. The difference was that gravity was a frequency interference between nearby objects and frequency (red) shifted noise coming from the distant universe. The objects would reflect and or filter a portion of the noise coming from the distant universe because it was out of frequency match with local oscillations.

You can understand this by imagining a room you are standing in, with a speaker playing loud music. The sound pressure waves hit your body. Some go around, some go through, and some reflect. The upshot is that your body is pushed, slightly and imperceptibly, away from the speaker. If someone were to then stand between you and the speaker, they too would block some of the acoustic pressure waves and be pushed away from the speaker. But you would now be pushed away from the speaker, less hard than when the other person was not there.

If you now line the circumference of a large circular auditorium with speakers and blast sound from all of them, and have two people stand close to one another in the center of the auditorium, the sound pressure will push them toward one another.

Germination

of

an

idea

37

cosmolo

Replace “speakers” with “distant universe” and “people” with “gravitating objects” and you hopefully get the idea.

The electric interaction is modeled as a phase interference. Two objects in nearby spacetime are vibrating according to the same “drum beat” aka spacetime. So their vibrations are timed and matched. In that way, they “feel” one anothers waves because each of their waves arrive at the other, in phase with the oscillations of the other objects matter resonances. A phase interference phenomena can result in a force of attraction, or repulsion, or in a “neutral” interaction.

38

The gravitational interaction modeled as a frequency interference can only cause things to be pushed toward one another. It is a one way interaction. And the frequency interference can understandably be dramatically smaller than the phase interference given that the frequency interference waves originate in the distant universe whereas the phase interference comes from two nearby objects. The phase interference waves come from the nearby objects themselves.

Long story short, I continued working and managed to find analogues for gravity, EM fields, the nuclear strong and nuclear weak interactions and even worked a bit on mapping out the shapes of resonances one would need to account for the existence of strange matter such as pions, kaons, and so on.

I found I could combine different phase angle geometries in different ways to get “neutral” charged matter and that there were different kinds of “strange” particles that seemed to fit the patterns. By using 4 phase angles, one can combine two different resonances in a number of ways and wind up with composite resonances that from a distance could have no net resonance if for example, the pair consisted of a 0 and a 180 resonance, or, of a 90 and 270 degree resonances. Both of those sum to zero net resonance at a distance from the pair.

By replacing the idea “quark” in nuclear physics with the idea of 3 of these fundamental resonances, and using 3 such quarks to make up a proton or neutron, there are only a small number of possible ways to combine the fundamental spherical resonances. And,

ogical variable

it appears, they can account for the kinds of reactions observed for nuclear particles. In particular, the nuclear weak force, in this new universe, turned out to correspond to an exchange of one phase of spherical resonance for a different one, altering the charge of one quark and changing it from say, a neutron into a proton. Playing with the possible configurations was interesting and fun.

I had found a way that single or clusters of spherical resonances could stand in for all of the particles of matter we know today. Well, to be clear, I found structures for proton, neutron, electron, muon, tauon, and had begun working on kaons, pions, and some other of the less complicated “strange” particles in quantum physics. The possible decay probabilities for products of various reactions seemed to fit what I would expect based on the underlying structure used for a pair of particles that might react. Using the Internet I could look up the decay probabilities as I tried to decipher the structures of individual matter resonances, all comprised of clusters or single spherical resonances.

Even the notion “spin” in particle physics seemed to make sense as a sub harmonic resonance (a resonance at half the frequency of the fundamental resonance). It wasn’t spin at all. It was a pulsation akin to what is observed in real oscillators with a primary and sub harmonic oscillation.

But the fun came to a crashing and horrifying end one day when I dared ponder what property within this universe might stand in for mass. The standing wave geometry is really simple. There is little there to point to. But there is one interesting fact about acoustic resonances when they are spherically focused. The focusing of acoustic pressure waves drives a compression in the medium within which the waves exist.

If the spherical wave is in air, then the air density at the center of the standing wave is higher than it would be in the atmosphere away from the wave (after reaching thermal equilibrium with its surroundings). So the amount of the medium filling the quantum vacuum of the universe would be greater in the interior of the standing wave than it was on average in surrounding empty space. That difference might be, “mass”.

If it was, I thought, then perhaps I could use the geometry of these resonances to predict

Germination

of

an

idea

39

cosmolo

(calculate) the mass of the heavy electrons in relation to, the mass of the electron. Muon and Tauon are heavier electrons. Perhaps the degree to which the larger electrons standing waves compressed the medium was greater, and that’s why they had a larger mass.

Perhaps from the geometry of standing waves and their compression, I could compute the relationship. I tried and found some interesting relationships, but the results weren’t good enough to stake any claims on.

40

I later came to the idea of phase change of the medium at the focal point of the standing wave. Imagine that water vapor is compressed until you form a droplet of liquid water at the center of a spherical standing wave in saturated water vapor. Yes, you need to have transported heat out for condensation to happen. I’m not trying to be overly detailed but rather to convey state change from something of low density like a vapor to something of high density like liquid so that I can convey that it may be that at the center of an electron standing wave, the medium of the universe undergoes condensation.

The logic behind this is that the electron is a stable particle with infinite life. It seemed to me that there must be something going on at the center of the standing wave that was special. If there was, then it could “weather” small variations in the incident acoustic energy driving it without flying apart. And interestingly, this makes the very center of an electron standing wave into what is essentially an oscillation between being a Planck scale (really tiny) black hole, then a white hole, and then black hole again, endlessly.

As a curious aside, I realized much later that there is one other “object” in our universe that has the exact same geometry. It is the universe itself. Perhaps we live in the interior of a universe (to us) sized electron. And, perhaps every electron is itself, an entire universe that bursts forth, evolves, and crashes back in again ten to the forty fifth times per second. That would give a new notion of the fashionable idea of “Multiverse” tossed around today.

Anyway, condensation at the heart of the electron would result in a larger amount of the stuff of the quantum vacuum becoming trapped into the centermost region of a spherical resonance, aka “particle”. And with that I had a property of this new universe that could stand in for mass. “Mass” was a measure of how much of the medium of the quantum

ogical variable

vacuum a given particle was able to keep confined in the interior of its standing wave.

All fun and games right up to this point. My wanderings had been fun and without any tie into our real universe aside from interesting or curious ways I could think in terms of what we already know. I found matches between various particles, all of the forces of nature, and now, mass. And there ended the games because I now had a tool to prove my ideas wrong. And if I did, the fun would cease and I’d have to focus on more mundane study of nuclear physics in preparation for the due diligence meetings to come. Here’s what happened.

Fusion reactions release a bunch of energy. In the process, a small amount of the mass of the reacting particles disappears in what is called mass to energy conversion. But if I was going to assign “a quantity of the medium filling the universe” to the property we know as “mass”, then, I was saying that when fusion reactions happen, the medium filling the universe must be emitted from within the matter resonance and it must then become part of the ocean filling the universe.

IF mass corresponds to an amount of the medium filling the universe, THEN, fusion reactions would be emitting, well, “SPACE”.

Fusion Reactions Emit aether, the stuff filling the universe

Germination

of

an

idea

41

cosmolo

That meant the sun must be emitting space.

42

M3 Flare Combo SDO Credit, Solar Dynamics Observatory

All actively fusing stars must be emitting space.

The Cat’s Eye Nebula Credit: NASA, ESA, HEIC, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

ogical variable

And further thought quickly revealed that space must be flowing into black holes, and condensing into a core at the center of a black hole inside of its event horizon just like in the electron.

43

BH Breach Series #5

No one I’ve ever read has ever imagined that idea. It also meant that black holes don’t pull things in. They are blown in and must crash into a core where the medium of space has condensed. But that also meant that if the ramming of that inward flow were to cease, then just like the electron, the core of the black hole must explosively shoot back outward.

Germination

of

an

idea

cosmolo

44

BH Jet Breach Serie 2

BH Jet Breach Seri

ogical variable

ie 3

45

BH Jet Breach Serie 4

Germination

of

an

idea

cosmolo

46 credit: NASA and John Biretta (STScI/JHU)

Double Lobed 3C175 Radio jet Credit: Image courtesy of NRAO/AUI

ogical variable

Much later after having tested the idea many times, one of the more interesting results was to have searched for anywhere that the core of a black hole might have breached confinement. What I found were radio galaxies with million light year long jets. Currently, because it is believed that black holes pull everything including light inward via an attractive force of gravity, there is no idea for how a black hole might explode back outward. It is currently believed that the million light year long jets originate from matter that almost fell in, but was instead shot out just before disappearing forever.

If these ideas are correct, then those jets might originate inside of the event horizon of supermassive black holes rather than from matter that failed to fall in.

And the Big Bang may have been a really huge, universe sized, black hole core that breached confinement all at once, inflating as proposed into what must be called a portion of an Omniverse.

Big Bang Acoustics serie 4

Germination

of

an

idea

47

cosmolo

48

Big Bang Acoustics serie 3

Big Bang Acoustics seri

ogical variable

ie 2

49

Big Bang Acoustics serie 2

Germination

of

an

idea

50

Big Bang Omniverse 1,

Explosion of Universe sized Black Hole Obliterates orbiting galaxies and their black waves within the inflating initial universe. The waves ultimately on fine scale form scale, the microwave background radiation.

51

holes to create acoustic med “spacetime� and on large

Germination

of

an

idea

cosmolo

This is just like my original attempt to create a particle without a force of attraction. The core of the particle couldn’t hold onto the outside portion of the particle, and so it flew apart. That’s what the universe did in the Big Bang. Our universe as a whole takes on a symmetry with a lowly electron in this way of thinking. The ideas, symmetries, and similarities to real astrophysical phenomena kept on boggling my brain.

52

Anyway, it was this tool, the realization that this crazy model required space be emitted by exothermic reactions, that led me to try testing it. I would posit that if this notion is correct, then when this happens, it ought to do this extra thing that no one expects. I would then search out the example to see whether anyone had noticed anything surprising. I repeated this many times, and always found a mystery associated with the process.

Further, the mystery was always similar to what I thought it ought to be after applying the new ideas.

To be fair, I did make some wrong guesses along the way. But after coming to understand the new ideas better, realized I had incorrectly applied them and that when correctly applied, they fit what was observed…………and yes, that does sound like a fudge, because it is or at least, could be. So here is how I actually began.

At this point in late 1995, I knew absolutely nothing about astrophysics. The closest I This is just like my original attempt to create a particle without a force of attraction.

The core of the particle couldn’t hold onto the outside portion of the particle, and so it flew apart. That’s what the universe did in the Big Bang. Our universe as a whole takes on a symmetry with a lowly electron in this way of thinking. The ideas, symmetries, and similarities to real astrophysical phenomena kept on boggling my brain.

Anyway, it was this tool, the realization that this crazy model required space be emitted by exothermic reactions, that led me to try testing it. I would posit that if this notion is correct, then when this happens, it ought to do this extra thing that no one expects. I would then search out the example to see whether anyone had noticed anything surprising. I repeated this many times, and always found a mystery associated with the process.

Further, the mystery was always similar to what I thought it ought to be after applying

ogical variable

the new ideas.

To be fair, I did make some wrong guesses along the way. But after coming to understand the new ideas better, realized I had incorrectly applied them and that when correctly applied, they fit what was observed…………and yes, that does sound like a fudge, because it is or at least, could be. So here is how I actually began.

At this point in late 1995, I knew absolutely nothing about astrophysics. The closest I Much later after having tested the idea many times, one of the more interesting results was to have searched for anywhere that the core of a black hole might have breached confinement. What I found were radio galaxies with million light year long jets. Currently, because it is believed that black holes pull everything including light inward via an attractive force of gravity, there is no idea for how a black hole might explode back outward. It is currently believed that the million light year long jets originate from matter that almost fell in, but was instead shot out just before disappearing forever.

If these ideas are correct, then those jets might originate inside of the event horizon of supermassive black holes rather than from matter that failed to fall in.

And the Big Bang may have been a really huge, universe sized, black hole core that breached confinement all at once, inflating as proposed into what must be called a portion of an Omniverse. This is just like my original attempt to create a particle without a force of attraction. The core of the particle couldn’t hold onto the outside portion of the particle, and so it flew apart. That’s what the universe did in the Big Bang. Our universe as a whole takes on a symmetry with a lowly electron in this way of thinking. The ideas, symmetries, and similarities to real astrophysical phenomena kept on boggling my brain.

Anyway, it was this tool, the realization that this crazy model required space be emitted by exothermic reactions, that led me to try testing it. I would posit that if this notion is correct, then when this happens, it ought to do this extra thing that no one expects. I would then search out the example to see whether anyone had noticed anything surprising. I repeated this many times, and always found a mystery associated with the process.

Germination

of

an

idea

53

cosmolo

Further, the mystery was always similar to what I thought it ought to be after applying the new ideas.

To be fair, I did make some wrong guesses along the way. But after coming to understand the new ideas better, realized I had incorrectly applied them and that when correctly applied, they fit what was observed…………and yes, that does sound like a fudge, because it is or at least, could be. So here is how I actually began.

54

At this point in late 1995, I knew absolutely nothing about astrophysics. The closest I had come to a telescope of consequence was during a visit to an observatory in Oakland, CA at about age 10. I had read precisely zero books on space, stars, or the universe. So I knew nothing and didn’t really know where to look for information. I was ignorant of any mysteries facing astrophysicists. I didn’t know how to search the Internet for information, yet.

But, I did understand fusion physics and how mass to energy conversion was supposed to work. And I made frequent trips to Palo Alto, and would head over to the Stanford bookstore to look for a book on whatever subject I happened to be studying at the time.

The first thing I did was to try to see whether anyone had noticed that the sun was doing anything strange. But I quickly realized that the flow of space or spacetime would probably work something like a pushing version of spacetime curvature that gets weaker the further from the star you go. So it might make the sun appear to have a mass smaller than it really does. But aside from that, it drives fusion at a steady state so noticing anything dramatic would not be likely. If the effect fell off something like 1/R^2 like gravity does, it would be hidden from detection by simple tests due to the steady state rate of fusion activity.

I then reasoned that since stars are born, beginning as a cloud of gas that doesn’t drive fusion and then igniting into a star that does, that perhaps something unusual would happen upon ignition that someone might have noticed. So I tried to find some information about new born stars. I figured that if space began flowing out of the star in significant

ogical variable

quantities, that it might interact with the matter of the star such that some of the matter would get blown away from the star. I felt a great pleasure when I found that indeed, various kinds of “newborn” stars shoot light year long jets and cast off shells of gas. I also found that these behaviors were not anticipated. The scientists studying them were surprised when they were first discovered. If a ball of gas just starts getting hotter and hotter, there is no reason for it to cast off jets or shells. So the existence of these features is still a mystery today.

If, on my first effort to find out what a newborn star does, I had found that they didn’t do anything, I probably would have dropped the exploration. But instead, I found that my first guess, that something unusual should happen and that it should cause matter to fly away from a star undergoing a rapid increase in fusion reactivity, was correct. With that discovery I realized that I could test my ideas even if I didn’t understand the physics involved in the real processes.

I could look at a phenomena such as the ignition of a star. That is a very rapid increase in the exothermic mass to energy reaction process. So I could predict that space must begin flowing out of the core of the star, in proportion to the rate of fusion in the core at any instant in time. If the rate of fusion was higher, the flow of spacetime must be faster.

Any matter that is swept up with the change in velocity of spacetime flowing out of the star would be accelerated away from the star, not toward it.

The “prediction” is specific in that it is timed with the fusion reactions. It is also in proportion to the fusion reactions. And for exothermic fusion, the flow of space will be away from the star.

The opposite can happen and provides another way to test the ideas. Keep in mind here that at this time, I didn’t know anything about different types of supernovae. I didn’t know what reactions took place in a Type Ia as compared to a Type II. And I wasn’t aware of any mysteries facing physicists. My realization that I could apply the ideas to these phenomena was based on the simple idea that fusion reactions lead to a loss of mass, and that mass corresponds to a quantity of the medium filling the empty vacuum of space………..which of course in this model is an ocean, not an empty vacuum.

Germination

of

an

idea

55

cosmolo

sonable application of theory would have predicted. And we can then simply compare the “sense” that observation differs from expectation with the “sense” the new model expects that deviation to be.

It’s like going to Las Vegas and having a system where when a person sneezes, the next color on the roulette table will be red. And when someone coughs, it will be black. So you just wait and place bets when you hear sneezes or coughs and bide your time otherwise. If you win 20 times in a row, you might want to let someone else know about your little system. And that’s what I’m doing here.

56

Like the thistle floating around in the air currents, we can’t see the air but we can see what the air is doing by watching the flotsam it carries along. It’s the same with flowing space. We can’t see the flowing space. But we can see stuff within that region of space and observe what that stuff does.

This is an unorthodox way of doing science. But it seems reasonable to me. It is falsifiable in the sense that I could have found that scientists understand everything they observe. Everything could have been explained by current physics. If so, then my tests would have returned no confirmation. Further, scientists could face some huge problems in applying their theory to the real universe as is the case. And yet when I attempted to apply my ideas, I could have predicted the effect should be “up”, but the mystery facing physicists was that the effect was “down”.

In other words, there is no good reason I should have been able to make a list of around 20 places where something strange ought to be happening, and get them all right. And most important, I invented the law of nature, or the rules I’m using, independent of knowing about any of the strange things going on in the universe. I came up with the idea first, and learned about the mysteries second.

In contrast, a crackpot normally learns about some mystery first, and then later invents a model they think explains it.

At any rate, I am not presenting a new theory in this book. Rather, I am presenting a set

ogical variable

of interesting and strange ideas. If any merit lies within these ideas, it will take a theorist able to tackle a serious revision of General Relativity to add the concept of flowing spacetime to the already present, curved spacetime. And, the flow will need to be traced from the interior of matter standing waves. So it will further require the revision of the Standard Model of particle physics and a complete change to the way we think about mass to energy conversion reactions.

Rather than presenting a theory, I am presenting some ideas. And these ideas may one day in the near future lead to our ability to use superconductors to levitate objects. And if we accomplish that, then perhaps space travel throughout our solar system will come as quickly as did flying once the psyche of the world had shifted following the Wright brothers first flights. A flight to the moon could be a couple hour trip, accelerating at one g half way there, and decelerating the other half of the way, with normal gravity in the ship at all times, due to the acceleration / deceleration.

And who knows, if we manage that, then perhaps one day we will learn how to intentionally force the condensation of the quantum vacuum ahead of a craft, manufacture our own internal spacetime, and travel at faster than light speed to nearby star systems in a man made wormhole, to use the currently vogue term.

I’ll dive deeper into what technologies might result later on in the book. And this concludes my discussion on how I came to these ideas. Next, let’s go through the model step by step. A number of concepts will be repeated with more detail in what follows. I’m just laying out the ideas and the things I learned. I’m not trying to say they are correct. I’m just trying to convey the concepts so that if anyone wants, they can use this information as a stepping stone to advance them beyond what I am capable.

Germination

of

an

idea

57

cosmolo

Formulation

of

the

Model

In the following chapters I will go through the various concepts and features of the model one by one. Some of these will repeat, with more detail, the mention of the concepts in the previous pages. The model is far from complete and far from being a theory. This presentation will perhaps be as good as saying that perhaps the “travelling stars” are in reality planets that revolve around the sun, not the earth. Or perhaps it’s a little like Einstein’s thought of what it would be to ride a beam of light, what would one see?

58

The idea we will explore in this book is, “Might there be a way to construct a model for a universe that has no force of attraction?” Everything falls out of that one question.

After describing the various features of this model, I will then make some first attempts to apply them to our real universe in specific phenomena we are aware of. To cut through all of the concepts of this model that are guesses and to get to the key idea that might hold an important insight into how our universe works, let me say that the idea that mass is another form of space, is the main result to take away.

If mass is in reality, another form of “space” and not another form of “energy”, then fusion and other reactions have a feature that is not currently being accounted for. When energy is released in a fusion reaction, the first thing that happens is the emission of a new volume of space that expands out from the (highly compressed) interior of the reacting particles. That emission of space then accelerates the particles away from each other and creates photons or kinetic energy. The sum of energy after the reaction is greater than it was before. And, the mass of the remaining particles is less. But here, we must add the new idea that in addition to those results, there must also be a new volume of empty space that was produced in the process.

So this doesn’t change what we know to be true in the sense that we will still see mass disappear, and we will still see energy appear. But in addition, there will also be an increase to the amount of “space” filling the universe. That space will then need to flow away from the location of the reaction just as compressed air flows away from a location

ogical variable

where we emit it into our atmosphere, mixing and becoming part of, our atmosphere.

The emitted space must become part of our quantum vacuum, as we call the ocean the emitted stuff becomes part of.

If we can figure out what the conversion ratio is, then we could make some calculations as to what we might see when any particular event takes place. For example, if one gram of mass, converted to energy as we know it can, creates mc^2 worth of energy and it emits say, 1 cubic meter of space in the process, then we will be able to apply this to any process that transforms mass into energy or energy into mass. We will be able to apply the ratio to exploding stars of both types, as well as normal stars when they ignite and black holes and so on.

Indeed, matter must be the last remaining droplets of condensed aether that exploded out of a universe sized black hole, that still haven’t boiled away because, they are trapped in acoustic antinodes. And the reason they remain trapped in acoustic antinodes and persist, is because acoustic energy is communicated between them via another universe wide structure of standing waves, spacetime. The universe, then, can be thought of as a vast ocean of aether fog droplets separated by aether vapor.

My best guess is that there exists one droplet in each spacetime node and one at the center of each matter standing wave.

Spacetime must be a rather complicated, 4 dimensional structure of acoustic standing waves. The “macro” structure vibrates at the Planck frequency of E45 cycles per second and has internode spacings of around E-35 meters, again the Planck length. Within the structure there must be 4 primary phase angles for local nodes to couple to. A primary node has one each of a 0, 90, 180, and 270 degree phase angle oscillation in the geometry of (probably) a tetrahedron.

In other words, think of a set of 4 balloons on the points of a tetrahedron. One balloon is fully compressed to aether condensate and is smallest in size. The 3 others are in the vapor state. To arbitrarily pick a particular time in the vibration, lets consider the point in time when the phase “0” degrees is fully compressed. At that time, the 0 degree phase

Formulation

of

the

Model

59

cosmolo

balloon is fully collapsed such that the aether is condensed. In the next instants it will begin expanding. The 90 phase balloon is half filled and imploding. The 180 phase balloon has just finished fully expanding and is about to begin imploding. The 270 phase balloon is half expanded and getting larger.

60

As each phase angle arrives at full compression, the aether is forced to condense. For lack of a better word, and taking the terminology from finite element meshing, each of these clusters of 4 comprises one spacetime “node” in the spacetime mesh structure permeating the universe. These nodes are arranged into a cubic lattice. But like with meshing an object using finite element analysis methods, the nodes can be closer together or further apart, leading to “curvature” within the mesh structure.

Adjacent nodes are all coupled to one another and transferring acoustic energy back and forth. The tiny core of aether condensate allows small variations in the total quantity of aether contained in an given node at any given instant in time. In this way, excess aether can propagate away from higher pressure regions and toward lower pressure regions.

This gives rise to the ability for the spacetime lattice to take on various macroscopic geometries.

A region where the mesh is distorted into an overall spherical symmetry is a spherical standing wave, or particle. A region where it is distorted into a pressure distribution with an appearance of a smoke ring is a photon. Photons don’t have condensation in their core, so they can only advance at the speed of light. Matter resonances, being spherical and having a core of condensate, are confined to translation at slower than the speed of light within the spacetime they exist. (Nothing says the spacetime they exist in can’t travel at faster than light speed).

As we move from “far” out in space where spacetime is flat, and converge into a “particle” we would see the mesh geometry taking on a spherical variation to the pressure values.

And as we converge inward to values around the size of the nucleus, the spacetime nodes would be highly distorted and forming into the geometry of an electron, or one of the individual spherical standing waves making up the constituents of the nucleons, aka quarks, aka 3 sets of 3 muon resonances, each with a different phase angle.

ogical variable

Waves interact, refract, and converge into the matter resonances. And expanding waves coming out of a spherical resonance refract off of the converging waves in the opposite sense, diverge, and expand out to become the surrounding spacetime. The inward moving waves and outward moving waves are coupled. In this way, the center of convergence can translate relative to the rest of the universe.

In this way it would be valid to call matter resonances and as well, photons, “acoustic knots� in spacetime.

It is spacetime that is the drum beater of the universe. Spacetime is what delivers the energy into all matter resonances. Without spacetime, matter would not persist. And in that way, matter is locked into following the shapes of the spacetime wave structure both in the sense of gravitational spacetime curvature, and other curvatures that result from nearby charged matter waves as they locally distort spacetime.

General Relativity, Electromagnetism, and Quantum Mechanics are all branches of science that study the wave these acoustic waves we call matter interact with another set of acoustic waves we call spacetime. This notion may one day lead to a unified theory of everything, if anyone can sort out exactly what the various geometries of all the matter and spacetime resonances are.

Interestingly, General Relativity deals more with how the spacetime lattice structure distorts, whereas Quantum Mechanics deals more with how matter waves, which are nothing but highly distorted or knotted regions within spacetime, interact. The intensity of the matter oscillations impose vastly more intense acoustic interactions than do interactions between matter waves and spacetime waves.

I happened upon a very interesting way of looking at this sort of spacetime acoustic structure.

Suppose I had a Planck scale sailing ship on the spacetime ocean of acoustic waves. The captain of the ship could look out in any direction and see a vast expanse of pressure

Formulation

of

the

Model

61

cosmolo

waves. The waves would be oscillating and he could use them to build a clock of sorts.

He could time how many oscillations it took him to hoist the sails, or to run from one end of the ship to the other. Time, for him, would be the number of pressure waves he experienced between “now” and “then”.

62

One day he noticed far in the distance, another sailing ship. He had never seen any other object in the distance and was excited by this new discovery. As he looked out to where the other ship was, he counted the number of pressure wave fronts (spacetime nodes) between where he was and where the other ship was. As he sailed toward the ship, he remarked that the number of nodes separating them was decreasing and that they were drawing closer. He was able to determine how many pressure waves he was crossing as he translated from “here” to “there”.

The other ship had a black flag with a skull and crossbones flying, but the captain had no idea what this meant. After a while, the pirate ship arrived aside his, boarded, and tied him up below decks. The pirates then sailed off with his ship and with him below decks, watching the clock he had made to count the passage of time.

Now, though, having realized it was possible to translate through the ocean of pressure nodes, he realized that his clock really wasn’t just telling him how long it had been from now until then. It was at the same time, telling him how far he had gone from here to there. Below decks, he had no idea whether they were sitting still, or sailing off to some new place.

All he was able to count was how “far” he had gone from “here now” to “there then”. He could only tell how far he had translated through spacetime, and had no idea how much of each his experience entailed.

In other words, if spacetime is a structure of standing waves that drives the oscillations of our matter waves, then whether we are measuring time or space, we are doing the same thing. We are counting waves. We count the waves between here and there and call it distance. And we count the waves we experience between now and then and call it time.

But in the end, one person’s space is another person’s time.

ogical variable

To summarize, spacetime is a structure of standing waves permeating the universe and to which all matter waves are coupled. Spacetime delivers energy to matter waves and keeps them resonating, and that’s why matter persists. Fusion (exothermic) reactions in stars, release bursts of the aether in a continuation of the inflation process of the Big Bang, delivering acoustic power to the spacetime acoustic standing wave structure, and that’s why spacetime persists. Whether we move from here to there, or from now to then, we are counting the number of waves we experience so that one person’s time is another person’s space.

Finally, for a number of readers, it will be clear that I’ve just swept the problem of “where does the energy come from to keep things going?” under the carpet. At some point in the very distant future, the galaxies will be far apart and essentially all of the stars will have died and ceased driving fusion reactions. What keeps spacetime going then?

The answer is, nothing. At some point there won’t be enough acoustic energy to keep spacetime oscillating and its vibrations will fall out of phase and frequency lock. Sooner or later, somewhere in the universe or at many locations across the universe, spacetime will cease to remain organized. When that happens, all of the droplets in the spacetime acoustic nodes will fall out of harmony and vaporize into gamma ray photons. All of the remaining droplets of aether condensate within the remaining matter resonances will also vaporize the instant spacetime ceases to maintain their confinement.

When this happens, there will be an enormous, universe wide, Big White Flash. All of the remaining droplets of aether will flash vaporize and drive another episode of inflation within the realm we call our “universe”. Our universe will again drive another huge push out into the aether ocean beyond our universe, into the Omniverse that surrounds us, leaving a low pressure region of the aether ocean in its wake.

Following that, the entire aether ocean will converge into the low pressure region and drive itself into condensation at the center, just like a sonoluminescent bubble imploding into a void within the liquid vessel. The power of convergence will drive the condensation of the aether and will form an enormous, universe sized, black hole core yet again.

Formulation

of

the

Model

63

cosmolo

And when the convergent flow wanes, that core of aether condensate will again breach confinement and explode back outward to create yet another new universe as it’s aether boils into another spray of droplets.

But there is no reason to require that the wonderful acoustic standing wave structure we call spacetime will form in just the same way. A future universe might have a very different geometry of “spacetime” or it might not have a spacetime structure of standing waves at all.

64

What’s interesting though, is that our universe might be an electron in a larger structure.

And our universe may drive two distinct, “Big” inflationary events along with a slow version of inflation called, fusion, that we can witness today. Fusion today and in the past may be the origin of the acceleration to the expansion of the universe. It may be the impetus that led scientists to coin the term, “Dark Energy”.

ogical variable

65

Formulation

of

the

Model

cosmolo

Acoustic

force

interactions

Standing waves can only interact in a short list of ways.

The first way they can interact is by filtering out noise coming from the distant universe.

Wave energy that is out of frequency match with local resonances can be filtered or reflected or part of both. Regardless, if one object is close to another object, they will each shield the other from quantum vacuum noise coming from the opposite direction in the universe. In that way, they will be pushed toward one another.

66

This is a frequency interference interaction. A frequency interference interaction cannot result in two objects repulsing one another. Frequency interference is a one way force that only pushes things toward one another. For this reason, it seems that this interaction is associated with gravity, which is itself a weak interaction that acts to push things toward one another.

How to get from the idea that matter resonances filter quantum vacuum noise, to General Relativity equations, is a difficult question. I suspect it has to do with changes to the density of the aether in the vicinity of gravitating objects. This could alter the “sound speed” of the spacetime acoustic vibrations, and thus the local spacings between spacetime nodes. If the spacings change, then perhaps the geometry of the spacetime mesh structure would have to change and we would have spacetime curvature.

The second way two resonances can interact is via phase interference. With phase interference we have a few different ways one resonance could interact with another. This is based on the idea that spacetime is a cubic lattice, and on the idea that spacetime nodes have 4 phase angles to which matter resonances can couple.

In this case, phase like resonances will repulse, phase opposite resonances will attract (they fail to repulse, and the universe will then push them together), and phase orthogonal (differing by 90 degrees) will vacillate back and forth with no net acceleration. In other words, they will interact in a “neutral” manner. There are two different phase or-

ogical variable

thogonal standing waves that any individual standing wave can interact with.

The list of possible phase interactions are: Phase

0 with Phase 0 0 90 0 180 0 270

= = = =

Repulsion Neutral Attraction Neutral

We could repeat this for 90, 180, and 270 degrees phase angle resonances. The rule is simply that phase like resonances repel one another, phase opposite resonances attract one another, and that phase orthogonal resonances are neutral relative to one another.

This fits the Electric force. And I will add here that with the electric force, the waves emitted by one resonance move out from the region where the resonance itself has distorted the quantum vacuum around it into a spherical standing wave, then crosses into and across the cubic geometry of spacetime, and finally some of the emitted waves converge into another standing wave. Spacetime maintains the phase relationship between the distant resonances so that the waves arrive still in the same phase sense as they departed.

Translation of resonances relative to one another would result in what would appear to the eye to be a rotation of the spacetime structure of nodes. This rotation of spacetimes acoustic structure results in a “magnetic field”.

The third way resonances can interact is essentially the same as the second. It is again a phase interaction with the same four phase angles. The difference is that the resonances are this time in extremely close proximity such that their spherical standing wave structures are right against one another. The exchange of waves moves directly from one resonance right into the adjacent resonances without first expanding out into spacetime.

In this way, these adjacent interactions are dramatically more intense than their weaker “Electric” force kin and we can pair this interaction up with what we call the “Nuclear Strong” force.

Acoustic

force

interactions

67

cosmolo

The nuclear Weak force really shouldn’t be thought of or called a “force”, at least not in this acoustic universe. It is an exchange where one resonance in a cluster of resonances is traded out for a different one. In a nuclear weak interaction, one might have a neutral resonance (a neutrino with say, 90 degree phase angle resonance) slam into a nucleus and a charged resonance (say an electron with 180 phase angle) be ejected.

68

Doing this would rotate the overall phase angle of the nucleon by 90 degrees. This reaction would be a beta decay where a neutron is transformed into a proton. The above isn’t clear, I know. I’ll go into it later when I deal with the structure I think might fit what we know about nuclear particles like protons and neutrons.

The point is, within the context of the acoustic universe, the Weak nuclear interaction isn’t truly a “force” as are the others. It is a mechanism whereby one matter resonance is transformed into a different but similar, matter resonance. A fundamental matter wave collides with a composite matter wave and knocks out a different fundamental matter wave such that the overall composition changes. Via this transformation process, a neutron matter wave can transform into a proton and vice versa assuming appropriate incoming and out going fundamental matter waves.

At any rate, the so called “Weak” nuclear interaction seems in this model to simply correspond to a trading of places of resonances with different phase angles. Again, there are some rules that must be followed so that what results doesn’t fly apart. But this really isn’t a “force” in the sense of gravity, electromagnetism, or nuclear strong forces.

Frankly it confuses me that the Weak interaction is thought of as a force at all, but that’s my ignorance showing no doubt.

Evaluating the different ways acoustic resonances could interact, we have found two different phase interactions and one frequency interaction.

The phase interactions have both “attraction” and “repulsion” characteristics. One of them requires the waves from one resonance to expand out into spacetime, then converge back

ogical variable

into a second resonance. The second of them results when two resonances are right against one another and they interact directly without the mediation of spacetime. The latter ought to be similar to the former aside from being dramatically stronger.

The former possible interaction best matches what we think of as the electromagnetic force. The latter, stronger interaction best matches what we think of as the nuclear strong force.

The resonances in clusters of resonances can also be exchanged. This seems to best match what is called the nuclear weak interaction. I haven’t described this interaction very well yet but will do so in a later chapter.

Resonances can also interact with their surroundings is via frequency interference. The frequency interaction for resonances works in just one direction. It can act to push nearby objects toward one another. “Nearby” means, close relative to the size of the entire universe. So in this sense, distant galaxies are “nearby” as the majority of the universe is much further still. The frequency interference best matches what we call gravitation, where objects accelerate toward one another.

The above ways acoustic resonances can interact fit our set of forces of nature surprisingly well. But there is one final way that acoustic resonances can be caused to accelerate relative to some external frame of reference. This occurs due to the emission or absorption of the medium within which the resonances are resonances. This is the behavior that separates these ideas from current physical thinking. And this possibility is what can be tested to discern between the models.

In this model, exothermic fusion reactions emit the medium filling the universe. That means that matter surrounding the position of emission, ought to experience some sort of acceleration away from the origin of emission. Alternately for endothermic reactions, those must absorb the medium filling the universe. Thus, matter close to a highly endothermic object ought to experience an acceleration toward the object.

Here are a few places where this new interaction might be observed. Indeed, the behavior

Acoustic

force

interactions

69

cosmolo

of mass to space, or space to mass conversion MUST be observed in each of these examples or the model being presented is wrong.

Examples of exothermic objects are all stars driving fusion, Type Ia supernovae, Pulsars, Active Galactic Nuclei, Big Bang, Big White Flash.

70

Examples of endothermic objects are black holes, various endothermic reactions.

Examples of objects that drive both endothermic and exothermic reactions simultaneously are Type II supernovae where the conversion of iron nuclei into neutrons is endothermic, and the driven implosion and compression of the envelope to fusion conditions produces exothermic reactions, all with enormous values and within seconds from start to finish.

ogical variable

71

Acoustic

force

interactions

cosmolo

The Trouble

with

and

Potential

of,

Strings

First of all, given my lack of expertise, and ergo ignorance, what I think about the potential of string theory isn’t very important in the big scheme of things. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have any thoughts about what I would do if I were in charge of a group of string theorists working toward advancing string theory to become a functional unification theory.

72

String theory is, in my opinion, a fabulous and probably correct theory. By that I mean that the correct solution is potentially hiding amidst all the complications involved in current string theories. What many theorists working on strings have commented is that they are able to find solutions that appear to fit our entire set of physical rules as they are currently applied. String theory appears to unify the two branches of physics including the theory of particles and the theory of gravity.

The trouble is that string theory also spits out an enormous number of additional things that are obviously wrong and have nothing to do with the universe we live in. Many have asserted that if there were a way to cut out a huge number of ways string theory could be applied, then perhaps what remained would be a unique set of rules that accurately describes our real universe.

That I would think string theory has tremendous potential for describing our real universe ought to be unexpected and strange. Strings are inherently “tensile” structures where the tension in the string alters its vibration frequency. And the first tenet of the ideas being presented here is that nothing can exert a tensile force upon any other thing.

So just as I was forced to eschew the concept of particles, I must also be forced to eliminate the idea of strings as a stand in for particles. So why, then, do I think string theory may be on to something?

The answer is because the “strings” theorists use are 10 dimensional strings. If you take 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions and transform the concept “string” into the new concept “spherical standing wave”, then you can eliminate the idea of “string tension” and

ogical variable

replace it with “aether compression waves”. Doing this collapses the number of ways one could apply the equations in string theory to what I would think would become a dramatically reduced number of possible outcomes.

I’ve watched videos and read books about string theory. One video showing how strings could stretch and collapse like a slinky to explain the gluon force, looked to me dramatically like the interference pattern that two nearby spherical standing waves will create as their waves overlap and interfere.

It seems to me that if “string theory” were transformed into “standing wave theory”, that for the first time we would be back to working on a theory that assigns structure and geometry to what we call, matter. And given that the waves head out of and in to those resonances would induce “force” interactions, and given that the number of kinds of force interactions is small and seems to fit what we know about real forces, it seems to me that new and interesting headway would result.

73

Perhaps the exploration would be nothing more than a mathematical exercise. After all, that’s what string theory was at its inception, a math game. But given the limited number of ways spherical vibrations interact, it seems to me that headway might result if effort was put in that direction. And, given that replacing 10 dimensional strings with 4 dimensional standing waves ought to collapse the number of possible interactions, it seems like the effort would be worthwhile.

Another aspect about the wave model for matter is that in the same breath as one supposes that matter must be comprised of individual or groups of spherical standing waves, one is also forced to adopt that spacetime is as well, a structure of standing waves. The spacetime standing waves couple to the matter spherical and clusters of standing waves.

Matter waves can’t move arbitrarily because they are coupled to and driven by the spacetime waves. Likewise, matter waves influence the nearby spacetime standing waves.

Neither exists without the other.

Once you grasp this idea for spacetime, it’s rather easy to grasp an extension to it that would allow for the existence of additional dimensions. To understand this, let me de-

The

trouble

with

and

potential

of,

stings

cosmolo

scribe spacetime for simplicity as a surface in two dimensions. The shape of the surface is like an egg crate with bumps and troughs. The peaks correspond to regions where the aether is at high pressure, and the troughs correspond to places where the aether is at lower pressure.

74

We can visualize this as being a bit like herringbone seas on the ocean, where a two dimensional pattern of waves is formed. The wave peaks and troughs take on a regular pattern, and we can think of that pattern as “spacetime”. The distance between peaks can be counted from one place to another to get “distance”, and the period from a trough moving up and down can stand in for “time”. So we wind up with “spacetime” as analogue for the overall structure of waves. That is, we wind up in a volumetric version of the above with 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension.

If we now consider the waves on the ocean, we can add in some smaller waves that are like ripples or chop, superposed over the larger spacetime waves. Those smaller waves lead to the formation of white caps here and there. The white caps can then stand in for “virtual particles” that pop into and out of existence in the quantum vacuum. And those smaller waves can also stand in for the 6 additional “dimensions” in a 10 dimensional string theory.

The “extra dimensions” or “higher frequency waves” aren’t seen by us because they are at such a tiny scale with wavelengths shorter than the E-35 meter Planck scale. They create the frothing within the quantum vacuum, and they result from the “noise” coming from the distant universe and arriving here and now, randomly in our local spacetime structure of standing waves.

Given the above ideas, if string theory were to be formulated such that it dealt with the vibrations of real, physical, spatial, standing waves immersed in a structure of real, spacetime standing waves that has some higher frequency noise included, then it seems to me the theory could explain everything there is to explain.

To do so, any such theory would need to adopt that there exist no forces of attraction.

ogical variable

It would be a fluid model for the universe. And to work with such an idea, the physical law that both energy and aether must be conserved in all interactions would need to be followed.

With that, it seems to me that the idea of string theory is very similar to the idea of spherical standing wave theory.

In the next chapters I’ll write what I have contemplated as possible ways to construct different geometries of standing waves and standing wave clusters as possible stand ins for a few out of the list of particles known to physics. The ideas are just a start. The goal isn’t to say, “Hey look, here’s the solution”. Rather, it is to say, here’s the basis of a poorly formulated idea that doesn’t yet work, but perhaps it could.

75

To make it work, one will need to be able to account for how adjacent spherical standing waves will perceive the pressure waves arriving from one another while they are moving relative to one another. In other words, one will need to account for the way their waves will be Doppler shifted when they get so close that they mutually distort spacetime from it’s global structure of waves into a compact grouping of spherical standing waves within which the spacetime overall structure is no longer obvious to see.

Whenever string theory manages this feat, if ever, I think a new theory will emerge that will account for everything we observe in the universe.

Keep in mind an important thing here. Even the leading string theorists have become convinced that there must exist some sort of Dark Matter particle, and some sort of Dark Energy. If these ideas are right, then what ought to emerge from an endeavor as described above is a new set of theoretical rules that change the way we expect galaxies and the universe to behave such that what we see is what we expect to see, and the need for Dark Things, vanishes.

The new theory will hopefully anticipate the way stars orbit galaxies, and galaxies orbit galaxies due to its expectation that space is flowing out of the stars within those galaxies.

The

trouble

with

and

potential

of,

stings

cosmolo

This leads to the expectation that the flow of space will slow down as it exits the galaxy, thus altering gravitational interactions. And it will also lead us to expect that the flow of space out of galaxies will be driving the expansion of the universe. If our theory leads us to expect those two things, then we will no longer need the ideas of dark matter or dark energy.

Let’s now explore some really beginning ideas for how to construct matter out of various geometries of standing waves.

76

ogical variable

77

The

trouble

with

and

potential

of,

stings

cosmolo

Sub-Atomic Structure, Electrons In the previous chapter I described briefly, the structure I think may stand in for sub atomic matter. In this chapter I’ll go deeper into the geometries I think may work to stand in for protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, muons, tauons, the neutrinos, quarks, pions, and kaons. Each has its own resonant geometry. In this I’ll also describe in more detail what I think may work to understand the nuclear weak force, and spin ½.

78

There will no doubt be plenty of errors, even if there is a shred of reality in the overall model. But at least by attempting to set forward my best guesses, you will if interested, be able to contemplate your own geometries that might be better than the one’s I’ll describe here.

First of all, the least complicated geometry of acoustic standing wave is that of a spherical standing wave. Spherical geometry is the best geometry for focusing acoustic energy to high energy densities. I take this to mean that the least complicated particle is most likely the one that corresponds to the least complicated acoustic geometry. For this reason, I have adopted that an electron is a spherical standing wave resonance. This further means that positrons are also spherical geometry resonances.

At present, I have a hard time being certain about neutrinos. The reason neutrinos were added to our particle list is because it was noticed that during nuclear reactions, a bit of energy was missing from the product particles in comparison to the calculated value, E = mc^2 from Einstein’s equation for mass to energy conversion. When I look at the geometry of two separating quasi spherical standing waves, in my head, it appears that some of the pressure pulses will be driven directly into the separating particles. But a small portion of it will expand out laterally just as does the plume of gases from a rocket launch.

It’s possible that the missing energy went directly into the formation of spacetime, rather than into the formation of a neutral particle. It’s also possible that the turbulence created in spacetime persists and would be measured in the laboratory with a neutrino signature.

Just as white caps form on the tips of ocean waves, perhaps “neutrino observations” in the

ogical variable

laboratory result from quantum vacuum white caps of a sort. The sun makes the waves in spacetime, and the detectors detect them. Nothing here requires an actual neutrino particle exist.

That said, I think the acoustic model makes the most sense if they do. In this case, neutrinos ought to be the same as electrons and positrons. Where electron and positron would have resonances coupled to spacetime 180 and 0 phase angles respectively, neutrinos would couple to 90 and 270 degrees phase. They should have the same mass as electron and positron. And this appears to conflict with our current physical models. But I’m not sure this isn’t OK. In other words, in this model they would have to have the same mass as their equivalent electron family member.

The heavier electrons, muon and tauon, would also be spherical resonances. One way I find to understand their existence is if the electron is a knot in spacetime that focuses acoustic energy from spacetime’s 180 degree phase angle. Then, muon could potentially be a more intense spherical resonance that traps a double sized core of aether condensate at its center. And tauon then is a yet more intense spherical resonance in the sense that it drives the condensation of an even larger aether condensate core.

This can be thought of as three different spherical resonances, where one drives the aether condensation into a sphere with a radius of 1 Planck distance (E-35 meters). That’s the electron. The muon drives the aether condensation at a radius of 2 Planck units. And the tauon drives condensation in a yet larger spherical shell at 3 Planck units radius.

This creates a relationship between the different electrons where the core of aether condensate has radius 1, 2, or 3, depending on which particle we’re dealing with. The volume of a sphere scales as the cube of the radius. And if the intensity of the acoustic standing wave tracks with density, then we would get a squared term for area of sphere and another squared term for density gradient. All together, the masses of the electrons would then scale as the 7th power of their Planck radii.

Starting with the electron mass, this means the muon mass would be 2^7 times the elec-

Sub-atomic

sturcture,

electrons

79

cosmolo

tron mass. And the taon mass would be 3^7 times the electron mass. This results in a simplistically estimated muon mass of 0.511 MeV * 2^7 = 65.4 MeV. The real value for muon mass is 105.6 MeV. Applying the same logic to tauon I get a tauon mass of 1117 MeV. The real tauon mass is 1776 MeV. So clearly I haven’t found a fabulous way to compute the masses of muon and tauon from first principles.

80

Curiously though, the ratio of my calculated muon mass to the actual mass is 62 percent.

And for tauon, the same ratio is 63 percent. It’s tempting to think that I’m just using a simplistic geometry and approximating a result without the more detailed effort of running an integration, and yet there is something to the calculation. And if I really wanted to play the invent a new number game, I’d point out that 62 percent is 1 divided by the Golden Ratio.

Anyway, there is perhaps a chance that someone one day will figure out what the precise geometries of all the fundamental particles are, and with those acoustic geometries, they will be able to calculate the masses of those particles from first principles. For now, I’ll leave the attempt and move on to describing what might stand in for a nucleon.

ogical variable

81

Sub-atomic

sturcture,

electrons

cosmolo

Sub-Atomic Structure, Protons

and

Neutrons

A nucleon is a nuclear particle. Every atom has a nucleus, and some number of electrons.

The electrons are said to “orbit” the nucleus. This isn’t the case. They are confined into regions close to the nucleus, but the regions and the electron motions within them have nothing to do with orbits in the sense of planetary motions. The atoms are around E-10 meters in size, with different atoms having different sizes. The mass of an atom doesn’t tell you what its size will be, by the way.

82

At the center of an atom is the nucleus. This lives in the realm of E-15 meters. While incredibly tiny compared to human size scales, this is an enormous structure compared to the Planck scale at E-35 meters. There are 20 orders of magnitude worth of acoustic waves to transition from what we think of as the nucleus down to what is called the Planck scale, at which spacetime acoustic waves would be observed (if of course they exist).

Now then, a proton has a positive charge and a neutron has a neutral charge. There are also in particle physics, “anti-protons”. We’ll see that the term “anti” means on thing in one place, and a different thing in a different place when we work to find a counter part in the acoustic universe. Here, an anti proton is just a proton with an opposite charge.

My model is that each nucleon is made up of 9 muon resonances. There are 2 resonances at each of the 4 phase angles, making up 8 of the 9 muons in the nucleon. The 9th resonance sets the “charge” of the nucleon. If the 9th resonance is at 0 phase angle, it is a proton. If the 9th resonance is at 90 or 270, then it is a neutron. And if it is at 180 degrees, negative charge, then it is an anti-proton.

The internal structure is a bit like a cluster of 9 grapes in 3 groups of 3 grapes. Each group of 3 grapes has a counter part as “quark”. The clusters of 3 muons can only have a limited number of configurations as there are only 4 kinds of muon. The possible combinations are as follows:

ogical variable

0 90 180 270

90 180 270 0

180 270 0 90

So there are, from first principles, just 4 ways to arrange a set of 4 elements (the 4 different muons with distinct phase angles at 0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees). Next, to build a nucleon out of these resonances we need to combine 3 of these quarks so that we wind up with 2 muons at each of the 4 phase angles, and a 9th muon at one of the 4 phase angles. Here’s how to build a proton:

83

270 0 90 0 90 180 180 270 0 Notice there are two of each of the four phase angles except for 0 (positive) phase angle which has 3 muons in total, one in each of the 3 quarks. The net “charge” of this cluster would thus be, 0 degrees phase angle, or, “positive”. So this is a proton. There is no other way to build a proton. You could reverse the order of the second and third quarks, but that would just be like looking at the proton upside down. Nothing really changes.

Here’s one way to build a neutron: 0 90 180 90 180 270 270 0 90 This neutron has the 9th resonance at 90 degrees. So it would be what I call “neutral 90” to distinguish between the two types of neutron. Here is the second way to build a neutron:

Sub-atomic

sturcture,

protons

and

neutrons

cosmolo

180 270 0 270 0 90 90 180 270 Notice that this is a neutron with “neutral 270” charge. It’s charge is opposite to the other neutron. This means that while both types of neutrons will be “neutral” relative to protons, electrons, positrons, and antiprotons, they will have a charge relative to one another. Neutrons, aren’t really “neutral”. They just have a resonance that is orthogonal, or perpendicular, to the resonances of positively and negatively charged matter.

84

Finally, here is how to build an “anti-proton” which is just the same as a proton, but with a negative charge. By now hopefully you can do this yourself, just begin with the first quark having its center resonance at 180, and then add in the two other quarks with 180 resonances at the beginning and at the end of their structure.

90 180 270 180 270 0 0 90 180 This has a net negative charge as the extra muon resonance is at phase 180, or negative.

Now, what’s wrong with the above? First of all, a simplistic application of just adding up the masses of 9 muons yields 9 * 65.4 MeV = 588 MeV. The real mass for a proton is 938 MeV. The mass of a neutron is 939 MeV.

ogical variable

Obviously, at all times, such an error implies a good chance these ideas are wrong. But too, it should be clear that if the mass of nucleons can change in fusion reactions, then there is something about the geometry of the cluster of resonances that enhances or degrades the entire cluster’s ability to confine aether. Mass, remember, corresponds to a quantity of aether being confined in the matter standing waves. And from fusion and fission we know that the mass per nucleon can change depending on the number of nucleons making up the atoms nucleus.

So we shouldn’t expect a free muon resonance to confine the same amount of aether as a muon in a cluster of muons with some particular geometry. I wouldn’t be a thorough crackpot if I failed to point out that the ratio of 588 to 938 is 62 percent. Again, the Golden ratio. And again, probably just dumb numerology. But I point it out in case someone reading knows about some geometric trick for integrating the energy of an acoustic standing wave that I don’t and am failing to appreciate. By the way, 62 percent is also something like one tenth of 2 pi. Clearly this is just numerology, but then both the Golden Ratio and pi do happen to show up in integrals involving spherical geometries.

Sub-atomic

sturcture,

protons

and

85

neutrons

cosmolo

The Nuclear Weak Interaction

86

I’ve mentioned that for the wave model, the nuclear weak interaction isn’t truly a “force” in the sense of the other forces of nature. Gravity results in an acceleration of objects toward one another. EM results in accelerations toward or away from one another. Nuclear strong force results in closely coupled groups of resonances forming a region in the acoustic spacetime where spacetime is knotted into the dynamic geometry of the cluster of resonances. That results in the individual muon resonances accelerating toward or away from one another such that they maintain their relative acoustic phase angle, and the nucleus or other strongly interacting structure remains intact.

The weak interaction, however, is a resonance exchange mechanism, and not a “force”.

Let’s consider how this might work using the weak interaction of a proton that transforms into a neutron during beta decay. Beta decay is where a proton fires an electron outward, and is transformed into a neutron in the process. How might this be understood from the point of view of a proton being a cluster of muon acoustic (spherical) resonances?

Let’s work with the following structure for a proton: 270 0 90 0 90 180 180 270 0 We have three clusters of 3 muon resonances, each at the phase angle described above in the list. There are two of each phase angle resonance which leads to a net zero charge.

And there is a final 9th muon resonance at 0 degrees phase angle so that the total net charge for the entire cluster of 9 muons turns out to be positive 1.

Somehow, we need to transform the above structure into a neutron. We had two different neutron constructions. They are:

ogical variable

0 90 180 90 180 270 270 0 90 and, 180 270 0 270 0 90 90 180 270 At the end of the interaction, an electron resonance at 180 phase angle is shot out, and one of the 0 phase resonance muons must be transformed into either a 90 or 270 phase neutral muon resonance.

87

To smack the proton and drive the transformation, we would need something to hit it.

And we have neutrinos flying around that could fill that role. We have two kinds of neutrinos possible, 90 and 270 phase angle versions. But this doesn’t mean that the neutrinos flying around the universe are of equal numbers of both kinds. Maybe there are equal numbers, and maybe not.

The proton structure, again, is, 270 0 90 0 90 180 180 270 0 Looking at the proton structure and working to get rid of one of the 0 phase resonances and replace it with either a 90 or a 270 phase resonance, we can’t replace the 0 in the first line of resonances. If we did, we would have either a pair of 90’s or 270’s in that “quark”, and it would fly apart. The same goes for the second set of muon resonances. But for the third set of resonances, if we could transform the 0 phase resonance into a 90 phase resonance, then the entire proton would be transformed into a neutron.

Sub-atomic The

sturcture nuclear weak , protons interaction and neutrons

cosmolo

If 90 phase neutrino were to collide with the proton, it’s possible that the “apparent” phase of the in coming neutrino would be phase shifted forward and appear to the nuclear structure to be an incoming 180 phase resonance. If that then collides with the 0 phase resonance and imparts some energy to repulse the 180 phase resonance then perhaps a 180 phase electron would get shot out, and the 0 phase resonance would become transformed into a 90 phase muon resonance.

If so the structure would transform into,

88

270 0 90 0 90 180 90 180 270 And with that, the net charge of the structure would be “neutral 90”.

Alternately, we might suppose that a neutral 270 resonance collides with the middle row positive muon to transform that row into a 90, 180, 270 quark. The final state would then be, 270 0 90 90 180 270 180 270 0 And the net charge for this cluster would be 270 phase angle, or “neutral 270”. The other kind of neutron.

ogical variable

Again, the above discussion leaves mountains of understanding to be discovered. And that would only be worthwhile if something about the concept of matter resonances and resonance clusters is correct. It barely treats things in a manner one might believe to have any possibility of ever leading anywhere. And yet, it provides a glimmer of an idea about how one might one day be able to unravel the way nuclear interactions work.

All of this boils down to discovering how rapidly-moving acoustic resonances in and of the quantum vacuum medium, with an acoustic sound speed at the speed of light, might interact. How might a neutrino’s incident waves “appear” or “feel” to the nuclear structure.

Would they appear to be phase rotated such that the incoming particle collides with the appropriate muon charge to drive the appropriate “weak” interaction?

It isn’t at all clear from this which way is up. I’ll add what I’ve played around with for pions and other structures that might stand in for sub atomic particles. But none of this work has landed in anything like an Ah Ha realization that this is how it works. Still, in spite of the vagueness it seems important to at least mention was hasn’t worked as well as what is intriguing. The most important “fruit” is still the idea that mass corresponds to a quantity of the medium, and we’ll get back to that exploration after a bit more on the sub atomic realm.

The

nuclear

weak

interaction

89

cosmolo

Sub-Atomic Structure, Pions According to particle physics, pions consist of a pair of quarks. I have to say, I could build my acoustic pions out of acoustic quarks. But it seems to me to work out better to use pairs of individual muons instead. The expected mass is closer and the decay products make better sense.

90

The neutral pion has a mass of 135 MeV and the charged pions have a mass of 139 MeV. The calculated mass of two muons is 130.8, and of 6 muons is 523. Clearly, the mass of two muons is closer to the real value. But that doesn’t mean that’s the correct interpretation. Still, if I work with a two muon structure for the pion, things seem to work out better.

Given that we only have 4 phase angles to use, there is just a short list of possible ways to combine two muons to make an acoustic pion, which may or may not match the behaviors of real pions. The combinations are: Muon Muon Phase 0 + 90 Net Charge= +

270 + 0 +

90 + 180

180 + 270

0 90

+ +

180 270

Neutral Neutral

None of these have very stable configurations, so would all be short lived. We can ponder the various ways they could decay. For instance, if I have combined a phase 0 and 90 to form a positive charged pion, if those two constituents fly apart, I wind up with a positron and a neutrino 90. If I combined a phase 270 and 0 together, and they fly apart, I wind up with a positive muon and a neutrino 270.

ogical variable

For real positive pions, when they fly apart they produce a positive muon and a muon neutrino. For negative pions, they produce a negative muon and a muon anti-neutrino.

So, using the above scheme I would get the positive muon and the negative muon correct.

I would also get correct that a neutral muon is also emitted in both cases. I have two “kinds” of muon neutrinos. I have phase 90 and 270. The Standard Model also has two kinds of muon neutrinos, the “muon neutrino” and the “muon anti-neutrino”.

Working with the resonance model and comparing it to the standard physics model I find that in general, the term “anti” simply means, “opposite charge”. But I’m not certain that the application is always consistent. In particular, because the wave model has two kinds of neutrino, whereas the standard model has a neutrino and anti-neutrino I could take away from this that I should assign the 90 phase angle muon to be the muon neutrino, and the 270 phase to be the muon anti-neutrino for instance. Or I should perhaps reverse those assignments to fit the standard model. The thing is, I don’t see a reason to require one or the other type of neutrino here. This is not the case in the weak interaction when a proton is transformed into a neutron or vice versa. There, specific phase resonances must slam into and be blasted away from, the nuclear interaction.

Here, though, for pions, it seems to me that each of the charged pions could have either kind of neutrino. And since it’s next to impossible to detect neutrinos, let alone what “neutral charge” they have, I’m going to guess that the Standard Model is missing a nuance here because it doesn’t really change the observable reactions.

Let’s now consider a neutral pion. Notice that for this model, there are just two ways to combine two muons into a neutral net charge object. We must couple phase opposite resonances. Either 0 phase with a 180 phase, or, 90 phase with a 270 phase. So, when things fly apart, we will either get a positive muon with a negative muon, or, a muon neutrino 90 with a muon neutrino 270. What do we really get in nature?

Two gamma rays. Hmmmm? OK, let’s think back. Phase opposite resonances attract, phase like resonances repulse, phase orthogonal resonances are neutral relative to one sub-atomic

structure,

pions

91

cosmolo

another. These are the primary wave interactions. I have also come to conclude that when the relative velocities between colliding particle waves is large, their “apparent” phase angle can rotate due to Doppler shifting. This leads to the “weak” nuclear interaction as modeled here.

92

Looking at the neutral pions, they both have phase opposite muon resonances. Two such resonances ought to strongly attract one another and when two standing waves oscillating in phase opposition combine, they will annihilate one another. While it ought to be fast, everything takes some time. Their standing waves become destroyed and the confined aether is then able to burst outward in the form of two photon vortices, aka gamma rays.

The photons are now carrying the aether that previously the muons had kept confined in the center of their spherical standing waves. And, remember, the universe just got bigger as a result. This is a reminder that one area of physics within this wave universe alters other areas of the universe and we need to keep track of where the aether flows, so may as well begin practicing here as we’ll be applying this to stars, the size of the universe, the Hubble flow, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and so on later in the book.

So it appears that the model somewhat fits what really happens. In other words, I could imagine the real results fitting to the model. The neutral pions decay via annihilation of the two, phase opposite, muon constituents. This is exactly what would happen according to the Standard Model if a positive and negative muon encountered each other, so there’s nothing strange about this result.

The charged pions have a pair of muon resonances that are orthogonal, so they don’t annihilate. Instead, they fly apart because they are to first degree, neutral relative to one another. They hang together for a bit because they both filter noise from the quantum vacuum, which pushes them toward one another weakly. And the muons we could have flying out using the model, fit what actually does come flying out of this sort of particle.

The decay times are also reasonable. The charged pions, with their pair of orthogonal resonances that are neutral relative to one another, hang together one hundred million

ogical variable

times longer than the neutral pions. Remember that “Neutral pion” really means, “pair of oppositely charged muons closely coupled”. To keep those apart, the pairs are certainly spinning rapidly. Close proximity rotation ought to Doppler shift their shared waves such that for a while, they could remain in “orbit” prior to falling into one another and annihilating.

93

sub-atomic

structure,

pions

cosmolo

Sub-Atomic Structure

in

General

Clearly, the descriptions of sub atomic structure provided above are so vague as to be nearly impossible to test. We can’t see things that small. But what’s intriguing is that this new way of thinking allows one to contemplate sub atomic structure in a brand new way.

We can contemplate different ways to combine muon and tauon resonances to form the various sub atomic particles known to exist from accelerator experiments.

94

Rather than treating particles as related groups of particles, each with a list of properties, we can instead begin to contemplate the way matter resonances might interact. This is similar to the revolution in chemistry where after understanding the various kinds of atoms and electron valence geometries, we could then contemplate different ways to construct molecules. These led to ideas like buckyballs, benzene rings, water molecules and so on.

For a wave model for matter, things are a bit similar. We can contemplate groups of muons such as a 6 muon ring, spinning rapidly so that the individual muons don’t collapse into one another for a while. This might stand in for a “kaon”, another sub atomic particle. That ring could also conceivably twist and crumple into itself, placing one of the muon resonances at each face of a cube, forming a cubic structure of 6 muon resonances.

The way it spins would then provide the ability of the cluster to remain coupled into a tight structure. When it flies apart, pairs of the muons could couple, forming pions, and or pairs of the resonances could collapse into one another and annihilate, releasing the confined aether and accelerating the remaining resonances away from one another.

If we could sort out how two closely spaced acoustic spherical standing waves ought to interact, whether translating or closely rotating, then that basis could enable deciphering the entire list of sub atomic particles. Not only would we then have a basis for what these things are, but we would have a better grasp of their internal structure, and how to work with them.

ogical variable

On a larger “length” scale, the same wave interaction models should then result in all of the known forces, or, a Theory of Everything as it is termed.

One interesting macroscopic structure is that of a superconductor. In those materials, it appears that the sub atomic resonances making up the nuclear matter in the superconductor, must drop into a phase and frequency locked state. But being macroscopic, the structure ought to do some strange things when rotated.

If one pokes around a bit and explores the light speed delay times for inter atomic wave exchanges, one starts to find some surprising things such as that the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in liquids manifests around the speeds of liquid flow where the inter atomic wave exchanges start to violate light speed communications.

There is an enormous, albeit blank, field of study waiting to be explored. But no doubt, it won’t be explored until there is significantly better motivation than the speculative exploration I have so far been able to compile.

Still, I find it very intriguing that one can construct models for nuclear matter, and wind up with a weak force interaction in a certain limited number of ways. Especially since the numbers of ways things might re-arrange seems to resemble what we know of nuclear weak reactions. That is to say that it’s possible to find a way to construct a set of resonances that could undergo exchanges that fit what’s known about the weak interaction.

This is a far cry from any sort of proof that this is what’s really down there inside an atoms nucleus. But perhaps we will find rules for how a set of four resonances can combine into a dynamic “cluster of grapes” sort of structure. And perhaps the rules will only allow combinations that happen to match what we know about various particle structures and decay paths. In other words, perhaps we can study the fundamental allowable geometries resonances could have, and then later learn that real matter happens to have behavior that looks similar.

This is perhaps the least well formulated arena of my quest. But it seemed important to sub-atomic

structure

in

general

95

cosmolo

put down what I have and have not managed to comprehend, even if I haven’t managed to glean very much insight here. Let’s now move on to treating the emission of aether in mass to energy reactions to see how this relates to the size and expansion of the universe.

96

ogical variable

97

sub-atomic

structure

in

general

cosmolo

Conservation

of

Aether

and

Energy

In physics today, arguably the most important tenet is the conservation of energy. Energy can take on a variety of different forms. It can be converted from one form to another.

But whenever a conversion takes place, the amount of energy before and after the reaction are always the same.

The ideas I’m presenting confirm, or are in agreement with, this tenet.

98

The new ideas do, however, add another layer of conservation to the puzzle. The initial law of nature presented at the beginning of this book is that there exist in nature, no means for any object to exert action via a force of attraction. In other words, nothing can reach out and pull on anything else. To get an interaction, one thing must collide with and push against, another.

That led to the requirement that what we think of as matter, must in reality be some geometry of acoustic standing waves in an ocean of some medium which I’ll just call aether, using the historic term for “medium that fills the universe”. The term “quantum vacuum” is a term that describes the “place”, and not the “stuff” filling the place. So I can’t find any other term to use than aether………..so let’s just leave that alone and move on with that definition in place.

Working with the idea of standing waves to replace particles, we found that the electromagnetic fields around matter can be understood to just be the waves that extend outward from the focal position of the standing wave. But when we got to finding a property for what we call mass, we were confronted by the expectation that mass must correspond to a quantity of the medium, or aether.

It will take some longer than others, but if you ponder that idea you will realize that we cannot work with this model if we allow aether to magically appear or disappear. If we did that, we would have to invent an entire set of rules for how and when and why aether would magically pop into, or out of, existence. The obvious new law of nature that I have

ogical variable

adopted is that aether must be conserved.

What this says is that mass corresponds to a portion of aether. That aether cannot be created or destroyed. But a portion of aether in one standing wave could be shot outward and then become part of some other geometry of standing wave, say, a photon. The photon can then carry the excess of aether across the universe.

But let me point out, here, that we must be very careful in how we think about the transport of the aether. If you look at a wave coming in to shore on the ocean, it is tempting to think that there is a big bulge of water headed for shore. There isn’t. If you pay attention to a surfer sitting on the water, you’ll notice the wave just rolls under the surfer, or bird, or flotsam. So for a photon to translate and carry an excess of aether doesn’t mean there’s a bullet of aether moving through space. Rather, it means there is a density disturbance within the ocean of aether, and that density disturbance, or wave, is advancing. The actual aether is sloshing to and fro as the photon passes by.

But when the photon was first created, when the fusion reactions shot out a gamma ray, that was indeed a burst of emitted aether, shot out from the interior of the standing wave and expanding to the lower external pressure where it formed into a vortex wave. From there, the wave is translating.

This can be understood by just thinking of a cannon being fired and a smoke ring vortex being shot out. The initial explosion pushes a bunch of new gases outward like the rocket ship. From there, the interaction with its surroundings transform the outward gust of gas into a vortex that then propagates through the balance of the ocean of medium.

What was previously compressed and confined in the center of nuclei becomes shot outward and transformed into a vortex within the ocean of aether. That vortex can then interact again and again, with other “particles”. In this way, what begins as the emission of a high energy photon in the center of the star where fusion is taking place, becomes transformed into a much larger number of lower energy, but physically larger, photonic vortices.

Conservation

of

aether

and

energy

99

cosmolo

By the time the photonic energy flow from the core of a star reaches the surface of the star, it has been transformed into a large number of much longer wavelength photons, which then reach the photosphere and begin their journey across the universe.

100

As the photon vortex advances, the tiny excess of aether advances with it. But again, this is just like a smoke ring vortex advancing through air. The disturbance advances but the actual air molecules associated with a vortex long after launch are not the same molecules as made up the vortex when first formed. Still, the excess quantity of the medium is being transported out into the “ocean� of medium and away from the origin of emission.

From this an interesting thought emerges. How much aether fills a cubic meter of empty space? How many cubic meters worth of aether have been emitted by all the stars in the universe over the age of the universe? Does that volume of aether emission wind up being anywhere close to the volume we could reasonably calculate the universe to have today? In other words, is the universe growing in volume because stars are emitting space?

And if so, then how many cubic meters of space are created when one gram of mass is transformed into energy in the core of a star like our sun? Is there a difference between photons emitted by stars, photons emitted by the cosmic background radiation, and the photons emitted by the most distant stars in the earliest of galaxies? Is there a way to calculate how fast our universe should be expanding based on photon emission and if so, does that match our current value for the Hubble parameter that tells us the universe is expanding at a rate of around 72 km/s/Mpc?

ogical variable

101

Conservation

of

aether

and

energy

cosmolo

Mass

to

Space Conversion Ratio

I have already described that mass corresponds to a quantity of the medium filling the universe. As such, one gram of mass in the form “particles” corresponds to some number of cubic meters of empty space, when converted via fusion reactions in stars, or via any other physical process.

102

Also, we need to know whether mass is transformed directly into space as we know it, or whether the transformation goes through a process. In other words, is it really space that must be flowing out of our sun, or might the flow of “space” be transported by photons if photons are in reality some sort of knot in, spacetime? There are a few curious calculations we can make here to work on understanding the process. And of course, yes, these calculations could just be numerology yet again. Hopefully I’ve said this enough times by now that it’s clear I mean it at every single stage throughout the entire book.

By making some calculations, even simplistic ones, we can at least rule out the majority of possible ways the ideas could be applied to our real universe. This effort will also help us zero in on how to work with the ideas. What players in our universe are most important when it comes to the emission of space?

What turns out to be interesting here is that the contributions from the distant universe are far greater than contributions from our nearby universe. So we will need to think globally about what objects throughout the entire universe, over the entire age of the universe, have been involved with the emission of photons and thus, space.

The best fit I’ve found so far is that photons are the messengers, carrying the “space” emitted by fusion reactions in vortices, or, “spacetime knots”. The flow of space may not literally be a flow of the quantum vacuum per se. It may be that the medium filling space is transported away from stars and other sources of emission via photons, which mix with all photons in any region of the universe. That means cosmic background photons, photons from the most distant galaxies and very first stars, as well as emissions from nearby stars and nearby galaxies.

ogical variable

We can do this by running a few different calculations, along with the adoption of some simplistic models for how things work.

In this section we’ll calculate how large the universe ought to be based on the total number of photons emitted since the big bang. This will show a way to getting the volume of the universe to closely fit the computed value via appropriate assumptions. We can then use the same assumptions to compute the expansion of the universe around us. We can then compare this to the Hubble value for how fast we observe the universe to be expanding.

Easily, the above is nothing more than numerology. It turns out that if I just pick different photon wavelengths and crunch the numbers, I can get pretty much anything I want.

So on that level what we’ll do isn’t very interesting. What is interesting is that the value I wind up picking is the value for the cosmic background radiation. This is a special number and is associated with the age of the universe in a particular way. Given the calculation could have been wrong by many tens of orders of magnitude, finding a value that lands within a factor of a few is curious to say the least.

But what would be really interesting would be if one could determine an inflection point.

If we could find an inflection point where the importance of nearby stars overwhelms the importance of the distant universe, then perhaps we would at the same time find the solution to the Dark Matter problem for galactic dynamics. But let’s begin first with the volume of the entire universe.

To run this calculation I need to make some assumptions about the geometry of photons, treated as vortices that transport the aether from a source to some other place in the universe such that the presence of those photons increases the volume of the space within which the photons exist. For photons I’ll simply use the idea that they are like smoke ring vortices. To compute the volume of a photon I’ll adopt that the wavelength of the photon corresponds to the diameter of a spherical region that encloses the primary effect of the photon wave, or vortex.

Mass

to

space

conversion

ratio

103

cosmolo

Doing this, while certainly not precise even if the model is correct, is easy to do and easy to use as a way to test some first ideas. The volume of a sphere is simply 4piR^3 / 3. So the volume I propose to work with is just (4 * pi / 3) * (lambda / 2)^3. I’m taking the photon wavelength, dividing it by 2, and plugging it into the formula for the volume of a sphere.

104

Next, I need to know the total number of photons emitted by all of the stars of the universe, and integrate all of those photons along with all of their wavelengths as they arrive at earth, billions of years later, or minutes later if coming from our sun, or thousands of years later if coming from the center of our galaxy, etc. But doing this would be complicated, so I’ll cheat a bit.

It turns out that if you consider the volume of a sphere, most of the volume is in the outermost radii of the spherical volume. For instance, consider the volume inside of and beyond, ½ the radius of a sphere. The volume of a sphere that is half the diameter of some other sphere, is just 1/8th the volume of the entire sphere. That means there are 7 times more stars in the part of the universe beyond ~7 billion light years from us, as there are in the part of the universe closer than 7 billion light years.

Basically I’m arguing that we can pretty much ignore the nearby universe. The vast majority of photons filling the space around us come from the far distant universe. And those photons, have been stretched about as much as the cosmic background radiation.

So for simplicity in a first attempt, I’ll just assume the red shift matches that of the background radiation. After all, light from our galaxies stars has spread outward to the far universe just as has light from distant galaxies spread around and become part of what exists here, now.

With that we have two simple calculations to consider. The first calculation is to find what the volume of a sphere, 13.75 billion light years in radius is. This is the radius of the observable universe. We can convert a light year into a number of meters to get a distance, then just apply the formula for the volume of a sphere. Doing this we get that the volume of the universe is around, V = (4 * pi / 3) * (13.75E9 light years)^3, or,

ogical variable

V_universe = 9.22E78 m^3 We can now repeat the determination of the volume of the universe by adding up the volume of all the photons emitted into the universe over the age of the universe. Again, the logic is that the vast majority of the photons come from the far distant parts of the universe. But clearly a much more formal calculation ought to be possible if the ideas are right.

There are around 3E22 stars in the visible universe by one estimation. An average star like our sun puts out around 3.85E26 J/s. The total energy emitted by all stars over the age of the universe is found by multiplying the number of stars in the universe, times the power per star, times the age of the universe. Doing this gives us, Total Energy emitted by stars in the observable universe = 5.0E66 Joules.

A photon with wavelength 1.83mm has an energy of 1.08E-22 Joules. This means that to conserve energy, there must be around 4.64E88 photons flying around the universe, carrying the aether emitted by all (distant) stars over all of the age of the universe. If we multiply that by the volume of each of those photons, V_photon ~ 3.2E-9 m^3, we get a new value for the volume of the universe.

Volume of Universe = 1.5E80 m^3.

This value will of course change a lot if we vary the way we run the calculation. Still, it’s interesting that it wound up remotely close to the real value. Out of 80 orders of magnitude, we are off by about 1. And interestingly, the real value is smaller than the one we computed by a factor of 16, yet we used a wavelength value that is a bit too big, and so should have come out with a value that was too big.

Let’s repeat this in a different way. How much larger will our nearby universe get in 1 second of expansion? This is a test of whether this method manages to get anywhere close to the value we call the Hubble parameter for the expansion rate of the universe.

Mass

to

space

conversion

ratio

105

cosmolo

This value is around 72 km/s/Mpc. This means that in one second, a spherical region of the universe centered on earth, that is 100 megaparsecs in radius, will have expanded by 100 times 72,000 meters, or, 7.2E6 meters. What one second ago was 100 million parsecs in radius is now that plus 7.2 million meters in radius. This addition is of course tiny in comparison to the 100 million parsecs.

106

However, in spite of its being tiny, we can easily compute the change in volume. We can also easily determine the average number of stars that would fill that large a volume in our universe. So we can also determine the amount of energy those stars would have emitted in that one second and using the idea that photons have volume as above, we can then compute the amount the universe would have expanded based on the photons emitted, using the SAME logic as above.

First, we begin by computing the change in volume of that 100 megaparsec sphere after one second of expansion of the universe based on the best available Hubble value for the rate of expansion of the universe. Doing this we need to compute the volume as the area of a spherical shell, 100Mpc radius, times the differential radius (increase in the radius over the one second time frame). Crunching the numbers gives us the volume that the sphere increased by in that one second, namely, dV = 8.6E56 m^3.

We can now determine what the increase in volume would be based on the volume of photons produced by a portion of the total stars of the universe that corresponds to the number on average that a region 100 Mpc would contain. Remember that the photons arriving here are doing so from the most distant parts of the universe. But they are spread out across the entire universe. So we need to determine the number of photons that would fit into the region we are dealing with as a part of the whole.

The value is found the same as before, using the same photon wavelength but now reducing the number of stars from the total in the universe, to the average amount in a sphere 100Mpc in radius, and by changing the time from the entire age of the universe to being just one second. Doing this gives us a new, calculated value for the expansion of that portion of the universe, dV = 1.56E55 m^3. Again, this isn’t perfectly on target, but out

ogical variable

of 55 orders of magnitude we are closer than 2 orders of magnitude to what we get by simply computing a volume change using the Hubble parameter.

I could repeat this for smaller or larger spherical regions of the universe and it will continue to work. To be honest, if you get it to work for one example, it’s going to work for others because the other computations are just a repeat using a different percentage of the total universe. So the above examples only really count as one independent computation that attempts to fit the new model to the observed universe.

Still, look at how huge the values used in the computations were. The results could easily have been wrong by 100 orders of magnitude. So it’s curious that the value turned out anywhere close to correct. Especially since the wavelength I used was the special one that about fits the expansion of light since the first moments of the universe. And, to be fair to the model, both estimations were too large, and the photons I used must also be too large. The red shift of light from stars within the universe, must be slightly less than the red shift of the CBR that I can look up and use to play with.

The above computations do more than just come close to predicting the expansion of the universe. They provide a concrete example for what I mean by aether must be conserved.

Today, we think in terms of empty space being empty. So we also think in terms of the expansion of the universe being an observation that the things we do see, are simply moving apart from one another.

What we do not do, is contemplate where all that extra space came from to fill in the growing spaces between the expanding galaxies. In our particle physics model, we don’t have to contemplate that idea. Empty space isn’t anything we need to account for, so we aren’t bothered by the expansion of the universe.

For the aether standing wave model, however, we must think in terms of a vast ocean of aether. And we must conserve aether under all interactions including the expansion of the universe. So we are forced to expect that the increased volume of empty space must have been manufactured somewhere by something. There must be a source of aether if

Mass

to

space

conversion

ratio

107

cosmolo

the universe is going to change in size. That source could come from beyond our universe for instance, and that’s an interesting line of logic.

But given that we can see the CBR glowing everywhere we look, it gives the impression that we exist inside of the fireball and are looking outward at the remnant glow that was once also part of, that same fireball. If this is so, it’s hard to imagine how aether from beyond our universe at the time of the big bang, could have penetrated inside of our expanding fireball without at the same time, quenching the fireball itself.

108

Therefore it seems to me that in order to account for the expansion of the universe, we need to account for the emission of aether from objects within our universe. And given that it appears that the emission begins with the ejection of photons, we must ponder the concept that photons are knots in, spacetime. And we must contemplate the idea that the photons transport the aether outward, both into the local universe and into the distant universe as time moves forward and the photons distance from origin increases.

We also apparently need to consider how photons alter the fabric of space such that it expands, or increases in volume, while spacetime remains coherent and doesn’t change.

In other words, it doesn’t appear that the distance “one meter” has shrunk over the age of the universe. Rather, it does appear that the distance between clusters of galaxies has increased. Otherwise, there would be a wealth of problems that wouldn’t make sense it seems to me.

If it seems like I’m hammering this far beyond dead, its because the photons weren’t emitted at the CBR wavelength from the stars that emitted them. If the expansion of our local universe is driven, primarily, by photons arriving from the distant universe, then we can work to refine the computation. But, if photons from the distant universe alter the expansion of space here and now, then the emission of photons from nearby stars must also have some effect. Perhaps its an effect too small to detect, or perhaps it’s a large effect that leads to the Dark Matter problem in galaxies and thus readily detectable if we know what to look for and how to compute what the effect ought to be.

ogical variable

And if there is an effect that can be traced back to galaxies, then we must also be able to trace the effect back to individual stars like our sun. We should be able to detect an effect in phenomena like supernovae, black holes, active galactic nuclei. In short, if the ideas are right anywhere, then they must be right everywhere.

This means we need to get better at intuiting what the flow of aether is like. To gain some insight here, let’s use the above values and compute the velocity this space must be flowing out of our sun. We’ll see that it doesn’t work, and then we’ll ponder why and find that it appears that the aether is carried outward by photons in what might be thought of as a machine gun like barrage of smoke ring aether vortices being fired off into the surrounding space.

Before ending this chapter, recall the title was “Mass to space conversion ratio”. So lets compute what that conversion ratio is when applied to the expansion of the universe according to the above calculations. One gram of mass, when converted into energy, becomes 90.0E12 Joules. Using the same method as above, this translates to a volume, V = 2.7E27 m^3, or a cube, 1.4 billion meters on a side (1.4 million km) Given that around 1 gram of mass is what was converted into energy when early, small, nuclear weapons were exploded, this result seems to clearly indicate that the ideas are wrong. There is no way that a patch of new space far larger than earth could have been emitted during that explosion or else I would expect that earth would have been obliterated, and it wasn’t.

Perhaps the expansion of the universe in a nuclear bomb, or coming from a nearby star, is carried by or driven by the photons that escape from the process. If this were true, then we should be adding up the volumes of all the photons emitted, using their wavelengths to make the determination, not the microwave background radiation wavelength. This makes sense if we think of the higher energy photons as compact, high density vortices that are carrying the aether away from the mass to energy conversion event.

Mass

to

space

conversion

ratio

109

cosmolo

If I repeat the calculation using a nominal 400 nm wavelength for the “average” photon over the course of explosion of a small bomb, then I get a new number for the volume of space that would be emitted. The volume per photon is much smaller, and the energy per photon is much larger leading to a far smaller number of photons being emitted. Both of those result in a reduction of the emitted volume of newly minted space.

110

The new value turns out to be V = 6.06E12 m^3, or, a cubic volume 18 km on a side. This value still seems too large if we think in terms of the emission happening in close to zero time scale. But given that the total thermal emission of such a weapon is stretched over a one second time scale, and that the photons are heading out at the speed of light, what is created isn’t a giant new patch of “empty space”. Rather, what is shot outward are a bunch of tiny, compressed, vortices carrying the new space with them in the form of photons.

Given that interpretation, the above value is well within reason.

With this idea, we can think of the sun as being a bit like a spacetime machine gun that is shooting an enormous number of tiny, spacetime knots, off into the surrounding universe. That emission of spacetime vortices drives the expansion of the universe. And as the photons expand over time and distance, arriving at distant galaxies moving away from us, the degree to which they have driven the expansion of the universe will be increasing.

Another interesting thing is that a red star will drive the expansion of the universe to a greater degree than will a blue star, if we assume their output power is the same. Or said alternately, per unit of power, a red star will contribute more to the expansion of the universe than will a blue star. Maybe this idea is wrong, but the numbers seem to fit best when I run them this way so this is the idea I have adopted for the time being.

ogical variable

111

Mass

to

space

conversion

ratio

cosmolo

Expectations

and

Observations

By now the model should be clear enough to make some dramatic predictions if we think about real objects in our real universe. In short, the model asserts that what we call particles of matter are in reality, some geometry of standing waves within an ocean of some medium we’ll just call aether. Spacetime is also a structure of standing waves within the same ocean, albeit with a different geometry than that of matter waves. Without the ocean of aether, nothing would exist as you can’t have waves without something that is waving.

112

Also, it should be clear that the property mass has been assigned to be “quantity of aether”. From that we found that this idea requires, if its correct, that fusion reactions in stars must emit aether and thus, that space must in essence, be flowing out of stars. By extension we must expect space to be flowing out of galaxies of stars.

But we also must expect that space must be flowing into endothermic objects. Two objects this applies to are certain supernovae and black holes.

Ignoring the complexity, we are now in a position to make some predictions.

For example, there must be a steady flow of space coming out of the sun because it is fusing hydrogen at a steady rate. When a star first ignites, it must transition from not emitting space, to emitting space. That transition must happen suddenly and we should expect some sudden and dramatic thing to happen to the matter through which that emitted space must flow. An even more extreme event is a Type Ia supernova. In that event, the matter of the entire star undergoes explosive fusion reactions in about a second of time, and that must release an enormous amount of aether and thus, space, in that amount of time.

There are also examples where the opposite of exothermy must be taking place. In a different type of supernova, a massive star has burnt its fuel to the point that it has formed an enormous iron core. When the mass of that core grows large enough, it will

ogical variable

be crushed so much that the nuclei are vaporized and the electrons are compressed into the protons, forming neutrons. This is an enormously endothermic reaction. Given the model, we are forced to expect that there must be an enormous flow of space into the interior of that stellar core during the process of neutron formation.

Another interesting object in the universe is a black hole. A black hole can only be understood if it is a place into which the ocean surrounding it is flowing. Interestingly, this is about how most physicists describe a black hole. They describe it as a place where everything, including light, is flowing inward like the flow down a bath tub drain.

And an inward flow can only persist if the medium flowing inward is changing state to a more dense form. At the center of a black hole, there must be a core of aether condensate. This, of course, is just the same process as was proposed for the electron at the center of its standing wave.

One very interesting difference between this sort of black hole, and the one’s imagined by science today, is that the core will only remain confined inside so long as the inward flow persists, AND, remains sufficiently spherically convergent to maintain a pressure on the outermost surface of the condensate core to prevent it from boiling and exploding back outward.

So, we come to the idea both that a black hole can exist, and that it can also explode if given a chance. We will see below that this seems to be the case. This idea seems to fit what we know of the Big Bang, as well as radio galaxies and their active galactic nuclei.

Basically, we don’t need to know very much about physics to make some interesting predictions. All we need to remember is that aether flows out of exothermic reactions, and into endothermic reactions. And we need to remember to expect that any interaction matter may have with this change in flow of aether will be in the direction the flow is accelerating.

For steady state objects like the sun and most stars, there is a continuous flow outward. expectations

and

observations

113

cosmolo

But if we think in terms of a transition from no outward flow, to an outward flow, then we can understand that a continuous outward flow will interact via various sorts of continuous outward effect. With that we can go exploring the universe of objects to see whether they seem to behave anywhere close to what the above expectations lead us to expect based on the new ideas.

114

What I’m presenting in this book is FAR from what one might call a new theory, or a unification theory. But I am presenting some new ideas and working to test them against what we observe in our universe. As such, for these ideas to be interesting it seems to me they ought to meet the expectations a leading theorist has proposed for genuine new theories.

In his book, “The Trouble with Physics”, Lee Smolin describes the qualities he feels any new theory worth consideration ought to have. I figure these ideas ought to meet his criteria too. He said; “I have already mentioned two features that successful unifications tend to share. The first, surprise, cannot be underestimated. If there is no surprise, then the idea is either uninteresting or something we knew before. Second, the consequences must be dramatic: The unification must lead quickly to new insights and hypotheses, becoming the engine that drives progress in understanding.

But there is a third factor that trumps both of these. A good unified theory must offer predictions that no one would have thought to make before. It may even suggest new kinds of experiments that make sense only in light of the new theory. Most important of all, the predictions must be confirmed by experiment.”

If I pit the ideas in this book against Smolin’s criteria, it seems to me that the new ideas I’m presenting are surprising. No one today would expect that space flows out of fusion reactions. No one today expects that what we call mass, corresponds to a quantity of the stuff filling the quantum vacuum, literally. And no one is out there contemplating that there exist no forces of attraction. There are a few fringe people suggesting that we use

ogical variable

standing waves as replacements for particles. But none of those equate mass to a quantity of the stuff within which those standing waves are, standing waves.

The consequences of adopting these ideas are also dramatic. If there exist no forces of attraction, then there exist no such thing as particles. That leaves only standing waves to work with. But that requires that mass correspond to a quantity of the stuff filling what we prefer to think of as empty space. And that, finally, forces us to expect that the expansion of the universe is driven by the space flowing out of all the stars within the universe. The space added to our universe must be getting manufactured, in stars, and emitted outward to fill the larger universe today.

Smolin’s third point is that the consequences must point us in a direction where we can test the ideas on the real universe in real experiments. This section of the book is all about exploring a variety of phenomena in our real universe and comparing what we see with what we would expect to see based on these ideas. We will also compare what we see to what physicists expected to see, before they saw what we now know to be there.

Did they expect to see the phenomena? Could they understand and explain it right away after they observed it?

The point is that what we should find if these ideas are correct is that we can understand what is observed, while physicists are scratching their heads. Granted, we will be doing a bunch of hand waiving and guessing. But that’s like living in Ptolemy’s time where the universe revolved around earth, and guessing what we would see if the sun were at the center and we were all revolving around the sun. We can come to a bit of an idea as to what to expect, there, and here.

My take is that these ideas meet all three of Smolin’s criteria. But that’s just my sense.

The ideas need to be radically improved prior to being able to truly assert that they are right. But one step forward at a time.

Notice too that these ideas don’t predict strange things to be happening everywhere in the universe. They don’t predict that anything strange ought to be happening around expectations

and

observations

115

cosmolo

the earth, or with the earth moon orbit. They don’t predict an electric sun, or mountain ranges of iron covering the sun as some wild theories propose. The primary place we can apply these ideas and expect something strange to happen are places where large amounts of fusion reactions are happening, or large amounts of endothermic reactions are taking place. The examples picked below result from, the ideas.

116

ogical variable

117

expectations

and

observations

cosmolo

Spacetime Curvature

118

due

to

Photon Flux

From the above chapters the idea that mass corresponds to a quantity of aether, the medium filling the vast “empty space” of the universe should be understood to some degree.

Basically, we need to think in terms of the vast universe being an “ocean” rather than being empty and a vast “void”. This is a difficult shift to make. We are so accustomed to thinking that a space ship, or asteroid, or comet, or star moves through the empty vacuum of space. But to comprehend the concepts, the shift must be made even if just to enable the continued discussion.

Within this context, we can begin to ponder how a flow of the medium must alter the rest of the universe around the flow. And we can begin to consider different ways in which the flow can manifest.

For instance, it is possible that when fusion reactions take place, the aether shot out immediately becomes “space”. If this is so, then that space must flow outward and with it, spacetime must expand with the flow. It’s possible that the “missing energy” that is attributed to the existence of “neutrinos” is actually a part of the emitted aether (and thus energy and mass exchange) that does become part of the quantum vacuum immediately upon emission.

But I think that the primary mechanism for emission of the aether is via photons as intermediaries. We know that photons exist. What we don’t know is exactly what physical geometry they have. We know their properties, such as wavelength and energy and polarization, but we don’t know, really, what they are. We only know how to quantify what they will do mathematically, and this is different from a true understanding of their physical nature.

For this section as an introduction to the coming chapters I’ll focus on the role of photon vortices in transporting aether, and the way that process must curve spacetime.

ogical variable

Hopefully you have seen a smoke ring vortex. When a smoke ring forms, it is the result of a collimated puff of air that creates the ring vortex. The vortex doesn’t need smoke to form, but with smoke we can see the vortex with our eyes to understand that it is there and what its geometry looks like. I think photons are comprised in essence, of smoke ring vortices. It’s possible that photons are a bit more complex, indeed likely. And that their true geometry is of a series of vortices that are all shot out in close unison and which form a wave in the shape of a sine wave.

If that’s true, then the sine wave shape could be why photons have polarization, and the vortex geometry is what allows them to persist and propagate through the universe. For this discussion I’ll adopt that photons are just simple single smoke ring like vortices. I think that if they have the more complex geometry, that the mathematics will work out close enough by making this simplification that we can continue the discussion, and avoid for now the complexity.

119

So if we have filling the universe an ocean of aether, and within that ocean there is a universe wide structure of coherent acoustic standing waves we call spacetime, what would happen if we then shoot a photon vortex through the standing wave structure?

I think the answer is rather simple, “Spacetime curvature” happens. The geometry of the spacetime structure of acoustic waves, within and around the vortex, becomes curved.

This is much like what we think of for mass induced spacetime curvature, except that the curvature here is in the direction of motion of the photons. Each photon curves spacetime. But they do so differently.

After working with the above idea and computing things like the volume of the universe, the Hubble expansion rate of the local universe, the tendency of a star to accelerate a stellar wind and other behaviors, then comparing those guesses to the real universe, the best fit I get so far comes when I assign a volume to a photon that is based on its wavelength, and then adopt a degree of spacetime curvature that results from that basis.

To explain this let’s consider a single standing wave within the ocean universe. It is a

Spacetime

curvature

due

to

photon

flux

cosmolo

spherical standing wave, say, an electron. It is emitting waves that expand outward in a continuous series of concentric spherical shells. Those emitted waves then interact with the spacetime standing wave structure which imparts small degrees of curvature to the direction the pressure fronts take.

Remember here that the spacetime standing waves are really small at the Planck scale of E-35 meters. So the electron waves also have that same distance between concentric pressure waves. This is not the “wavelength” of the electron, which is a vastly larger value.

120

If the waves emitted by the electron interact with a passing photon, the waves that interact will be swept forward in the direction of the photon a small amount. And that will result in their converging, later on, toward a position that is displaced from where the electron initially was. In other words, when we sum all of the returning waves to find out where the electron “will be”, we find that it will be shifted in position slightly, in the direction the photon was moving.

If there are more photons, then the shift will be greater. And if the photons are of a longer wavelength, then the shift will be greater. This last property that I think is correct means that longer wavelength photons actually impose a greater spacetime curvature effect than do higher energy more compact photons. This is because the part of the photon vortex that is moving forward is actually just the core. But for a larger wavelength photon, the size of the core, and thus the size of the moving region of aether, is larger.

From the above discussion it seems we can expect that there must be a flow of aether out of a star driving fusion reactions (exothermic). There must also be a flow into any object driving endothermic reactions, such as a Type II supernova when the iron nuclei in the core of the star disintegrate into neutrons as a neutron star (or black hole) is formed.

But what turns out to be very interesting from the point of view of photons imposing spacetime curvature, is that this may provide a foundation for thermal motions within matter. All of the “particles” of an object, whether solid, liquid, gas, or plasma, result from the way the photons being exchanged are continuously curving spacetime in complicated and never ending ways.

ogical variable

And if the passing of a photon imparts some small degree of curvature to spacetime, then we have a brand new tool to use to explore how we ought to expect stars to behave. This is because within a material or in the case of a star, within a plasma, the photon flux has no net direction. Photons are moving in all directions about equally, so there won’t be any net curvature imposed upon the spacetime through which the photons are moving.

This changes, though, when we climb up and out of the photosphere of the star. Once we arrive at the outermost region of a star, the photosphere, the photons are able to escape to the universe outside. The photosphere is the thickness of plasma that on average, a photon will not scatter. So that a photon emitted in an outward radial direction from the bottom of the photosphere will usually escape to the outside universe.

121

If we study what happens to spacetime just outside of a star, we find that there are a huge number of photons all flowing on average, radially away from the star. From the above, we must expect that there will result an equally large number of mini regions of curved spacetime as each photon passes by some object such as an electron or ion in the photosphere or corona.

The first and most important thing to glean from the above ideas is that fusion reactions within a star result ultimately in a change to the curvature of spacetime around the star.

The change is directed away from the star. And further, the change is tied to the rate of fusion within the star.

Another thing from the above is that the curvature imposed per photon for a “red” photon is more than the curvature imposed by a “blue” photon. The fact that a blue photon has a higher energy makes this counter intuitive. We tend to think in terms that higher energy ought to result in bigger effect. But actually, the red photon is larger and forced a greater expansion of the universe when it was formed during the emission from some process. The blue photon carries more energy, and thus more aether. But it’s vortex structure is more compact and so it distorts spacetime less.

Both photons move at the speed of light. And what seems to work best, after trying a number of possible ideas (including that the distortion would be proportional to the en-

Spacetime

curvature

due

to

photon

flux

cosmolo

ergy of the photon, which doesn’t work) I have come to conclude that the way to think of this distortion is as a “volume” of the universe that is moving at the speed of light. This isn’t really momentum. It has units of volume times speed, so, m^4/s.

What I’ve found to work (seemingly) is to determine the percentage of a cubic meter outside of a star that is moving outward at the speed of light, and then average that with the rest of the volume being stationary. So for instance, if 1 percent of the volume is comprised of the central cores of the photons moving at the speed of light, and 99 percent is stationary (doesn’t contain photon vortex cores), the average would be determined by:

122

Average velocity = ((0.01 m^3 * 300E6 m/s) + (0.99 m^3 * 0 m/s)) / 1 m^3 The average velocity of spacetime in that example is thus, v_bar = 3,000 km/s For the sun, the moving photon volume turns out to be 2.11E-3 so that I get the average velocity of spacetime outside the surface of the sun is around 634 km/s. This value is slightly higher than the surface escape velocity. It is also no doubt a measure of the peak in the degree to which spacetime is distorted by photon flux. In other words, spacetime isn’t curved to this degree everywhere or the entire photosphere would continuously flow off into space, peeling away the mass of the sun.

Rather, this value is a measure (I think) of the typical, average, maximum intensity of the spacetime curvature. That’s a mouthful. By average, I mean that this is the largest degree to which spacetime around the outside of the sun, on average becomes curved. I’m sure there’s a better way of stating this idea but hopefully that will convey the idea.

Basically, if you think about the photons flowing away from the sun, past some point in space around the sun, there will be times when there are few photons passing close by.

There will be other times when a great number of photons will all at the same time, pass closely by the point in question. The degree to which the photons curve the spacetime at the point will vary up and down with time. But the variations will in general, remain with some nominal boundaries.

ogical variable

Whenever the curvature is larger than the surface escape velocity, the matter will experience an acceleration away from the sun. And whenever this new curvature mechanism is weak, the matter will primarily experience the mass related spacetime curvature due to the mass of the sun. In other words, the spacetime curvature the particle in the photosphere experiences will be the difference between this new outward directed curvature, and the normal mass related curvature.

The value found is not by accident, it is by design. Looking at the sun it seems to me that the sun is a star where this new effect is just about equal to the mass related curvature effect. This means that matter is sort of just floating near the outside of the sun. The above isn’t very interesting and seems ad hoc until you plot the values for this same equation for a variety of different stars.

123

We can plot the ratio of the above velocity to the surface escape velocity for each star.

When we do that in a later chapter, we’ll see that there is a strong pattern that develops.

Stars along the main sequence all have a ratio close to 1.0. The surface escape velocity for the sun is around 618 km/s, and the ratio is around 1.03. You can see on the HR diagram plot the values I obtained for a variety of different stars.

Spacetime

curvature

due

to

photon

flux

cosmolo

1.0

0.24 - 0.51

8.33

3.41 - 10.55 4.3 - 7.32 - 30.1 0.31

2.24

2.5

6.13 5.34

1.23

0.85

6.62

1.25

10 - 14.26 1.00

4.2

124 1.25

Neutron Star 4.0E - 26

2.16

1 1.1 1.29

0.1 0.17

0.13

1.2

ogical variable

The clear pattern is that the ratio is small for compact stars like white dwarfs and neutron stars. It is about 1.0 for main sequence stars. And it rises to around 10 and perhaps 30 for Giant red stars. One star I’ve found so far, Rho Cassiopeiae, a rare yellow hyper giant star undergoes outbursts and it’s luminosity, radius and temperature vary such that it has had values ranging from 4.3 to 30.1. It may be that the value goes up during an eruption, as the value, I think, is an indicator of solar wind intensity.

To get to solar wind intensity, though, I think what needs to be done is to compute the opacity of the star and multiply the ratio I get, times opacity (g / m^2) times the area of the star.

125

I’m hoping that adding in the opacity figure will help make sense out of the small values I find for blue giant stars. In other words, I think that the hot blue stars are better at blowing off material because the column of material making up the photosphere is thicker so that in spite of blue photons curving spacetime less, there are more of them and there is a thicker blanket of matter in the photosphere affected by the photon curvature effect.

I’ll explore this more and hopefully find some opacity values for real stars so I can check this idea in the near future.

Spacetime

curvature

due

to

photon

flux

cosmolo

Newborn Stars The easiest place to begin is with newborn stars. A great number of stars undergo a transition from not driving fusion, to ignition where they drive large numbers of fusion reactions. We have no choice but to expect that such a transition must result in some sort of outward effect on some or all of the matter of the star. A naĂŻve interpretation would be that the star, when it ignited, would blow all of its matter outward in a big, spherical, puff. The star would fly apart and disperse into the surrounding space.

126

But a little thinking would quickly inform us that if the core of the star were to expand to arbitrary size, the distances between particles would increase and the rate of fusion would precipitously drop. A drop in the rate of fusion would then lead to a reduction in the space emitted, and the effect that would otherwise blow the star apart, would subside and the matter of the star would collapse back inward.

The above behavior would lead to a pulsation of a star during its ignition phase.

Alternately, if fusion were to continue at a tremendous pace, the only way it would be sustainable is if the flow of aether, or space, out of the star were to match the rate of fusion reactions in the core. The flow could conceivably head out along all radial paths. But it could also conceivably head outward along the axis of rotation because that is a path of least resistance to the flow given that the matter of the star is rotating.

My sense is that a little of each takes place when stars ignite. At first, just prior to ignition, the matter in the star is as compact as it will ever get. It is relatively speaking, cold. It may be hot compared to the outer layers of matter making up the star. But it is cold compared to how hot it will get after the fusion reactions reach equilibrium. In other words, after ignition the core is going to heat up as the overlying matter acts as an insulating blanket.

So to begin, we should expect matter to fly away from the star that wouldn’t otherwise have been blown away.

ogical variable Three-Trillion-Mile-Long Jet From a Wobbly Star (HH-47)

So what happens when a star ignites? There are two types of “newborn” star. The first time a star ignites happens within a stellar nursery cloud of hydrogen gas.

Regions within the immense clouds gradually collapse and become denser.

At some point the compression will heat the core to the point where fusion reactions can begin. When fusion reactions begin, we observe light year long jets of gas being shot outward from within the cloud of gas.

It is not known why these jets arise, but it’s clear they arise very close to the newborn star.

Current thinking is that the jets arise from matter falling down onto the star. Some of the in falling gas becomes a tornado vortex of sorts with rapid rotation. Then, a portion of the falling gas is shot back outward across the host galaxy.

It’s important to reflect on the fact that astrophysicists never expected to see these jets.

They were a surprise. There is no good reason to expect that gas falling into a star would turn around and fly back outward again, let alone to fly outward in light year long jets.

Instead, it was expected that the forming ball of gas would just slowly heat up from the inside until gradually, the surrounding gas clouds were gently blown away and the star was revealed.

Using this model, however, we expect that there must be some effect that is initiated at the instant of fusion ignition. And we expect that the effect must blow matter outward. We wouldn’t (I didn’t) necessarily expect that the outward breeze would take on a collimated jet form. But if we consider that the outward moving flow of newly emitted space has a

Newborn

stars

127

cosmolo

path of least resistance if it flows along the axis of rotation, then it isn’t very surprising that jets form. Nor is it surprising that the jets extend for a light year into the host galaxy.

128

After ignition and jet formation, the next stage in evolution for a newborn (t-tauri) star is to enter into a phase of flaring. If we think of the matter of the star as being a bit like a fluidized bed of sand, and we think of the flow of space out through that ball of matter as being like air flowing through the ball of sand, then the flaring makes sense. When the flaring begins, the jets end. So, this is just the same flow, but now rather than all of the flow punching outward along the axis of rotation, it is now punching its way outward along additional radial directions. The entire star can be thought of as becoming fluidized to the flow of space. These are Flare stars.

There are also pulsating stars. And that process may well be what I mentioned above. Namely, it may be that the rate of fusion is significantly going up and down periodically. The rate of fusion goes down when the space emitted inflates the core of the star and the rate of fusion drops because the “space” between particles has increased. Then, after that emitted space has time to flow outward through the overlying matter, the bulk of the star falls inward, compressing the distances between atoms in the core so that the rate of fusion goes back up. It’s an oscillation much like I presented earlier in the book in the context of sonofusion reactors.

Cat’Eye Nebula with rings and FLIERs

There is yet another sort of newborn NASA, ESA, HEIC, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

ogical variable

star. These are the progenitors of planetary nebulae. An old star that runs out of hydrogen to burn will cease to drive fusion reactions. As the star continues to age, the outer layers cool and compress the core until the helium nuclei now filling the core, get hot enough to ignite. When that happens, the core of the star jumps back into life driving the fusion of helium in what is called the helium flash.

When the star ignites this time, it is out in the galaxy and we can see it clearly without any overlying clouds of gas associated with the first ignition of the star. We can see beautiful images from Hubble and other telescopes showing the intricate features of gas ejection.

Gas is again ejected in jets. But this time the jets don’t have immense clouds surrounding them, so we can see features that we could not during the first ignitions. Also, the chemical make up of these stars is different from the surrounding clouds of gas the newborn was in. Planetary nebulae typically have one form or another of FLIER’s. This stands for Fast Low Ionization Emission Regions. They are the jet like features in most planetary nebulae.

Bruce Ballick of UW commented that they appear to be spit balls shot out from the interior of the star. The reason is because they have a chemical make up that matches what exists in the interior of the star, and not in its outer envelope. Now remember, this is essentially the same feature as the jets on t-tauri stars. But unlike the t-tauri stars, there are no surrounding gas clouds with infalling matter to some how turn around and fly back outward in the form of jets or clumps of gas.

The other odd thing about FLIERT is that they are moving fast, but are at a low ionization state. Typically, if some stuff is moving fast it is because it came from somewhere extra hot. And matter coming from somewhere that is extra hot, ought to be at a high level of ionization. So these FLIERs are an enigma because they are moving fast, but they are cold. These two things don’t normally go together. And they are an enigma because there isn’t any in falling matter to explain this with some sort of magnetic field interaction. But even if there were, the chemical composition of matter in the outer regions of the star isn’t the same as that of the FLIERs, which better match the composition in the

Newborn

stars

129

cosmolo

deep interior of the star.

Other features we see are series of concentric spherical shells of ejected gas. It’s as if the star is casting off puffs of its outermost layers.

NGC 7009, PN with FLIERs and ejected gas

130

Using the new model, these observations make pretty good sense. If a rapid increase in the rate of fusion takes place, then a rapid burst of aether or space must exit the star from its center. And the flow of that space can carry along with it, some of the matter along its path outward from the core.

A quick burst would reasonably blow out a spit ball of matter from the interior.

A slower rise and fall in the rate of fusion could reasonably puff off spherical shells of the overlying gases. These would lift up and off

Bruce Balick (University of Washington), Jason Alexander (University of Washington), Arsen Hajian (U.S. Naval Observatory), Yervant Terzian (Cornell University), Mario Perinotto (University of Florence, Italy), Patrizio Patriarchi (Arcetri Observatory, Italy), NASA

ogical variable

of the star. An increase in the flow of space would unbind a layer of matter on the exterior of the star and cast it away. Doing so would puff up the star and drop the rate of fusion in the core. Later, as the matter of the star collapses back inward, the rate of fusion would go back up. So its reasonable that we would wind up with an oscillation in the rate of fusion reactions for a while after ignition. And its also reasonable that this variability would puff off spherical shells of gas from the outer layers.

The key take away from these examples is a bit less dramatic. We expect matter to be blown outward, in a direction headed away from the star as a result of the ignition of fusion reactions. Ignoring the shapes one might guess, the fact is that we do see matter flying away from every one of these stars.

Finally, the scientists studying them did not anticipate they would see such phenomena and are still to this day struggling to explain these features. In contrast, if we did not see matter flying away from newborn stars, we would have had to seriously consider that these ideas are wrong. Because we expected matter to be flying outward, and because we found that matter is, surprisingly, flying outward from these objects, we have failed to prove these ideas are wrong in this example.

This doesn’t prove them right. We can never prove them right. But we can try, many times, to prove them wrong in a variety of different sorts of places across the universe.

And if we fail at every turn to prove them wrong, then we may begin to wonder whether we ought to study them more closely. So let’s move on to another example.

Newborn

stars

131

T-tauri Newborn Star, “Mystic Moutain”, Hubble T-Tauri jet

: NASA, ESA, and M. Livio and the Hubble 20th Anniversary Team (STScI)

cosmolo

T- tauri jet HH34 1994

NASA, ESA, and P. Hartigan (Rice University)

134

T- tauri jet HH34 1998

NASA, ESA, and P. Hartigan (Rice University)

T- tauri jet HH34 2007

NASA, ESA, and P. Hartigan (Rice University)

ogical variable

135

Newborn

stars

cosmolo

Type Ia Supernovae

136

Type Ia supernovae have made a lot of headlines in the past couple decades. They are exploding stars that are very uniform in brightness, explosion duration, and so on. They are bursts of light that can be detected at great distances across the universe so as to map out the expansion of the universe. The study of Type Ia supernovae has led to the dark energy problem in astrophysics. Everyone thought gravity should be slowing down the rate of expansion of the universe. After all, gravity is thought to be a force of attraction, pulling matter together. Throw a ball into the air, and it falls back down to earth due to the earth’s force of attraction, or gravity.

Basically, if you have a star slightly more massive than the sun, it would collapse and form a black hole. But as it began to collapse, all of the nuclei in the star would be crushed closer and closer to one another. So if you begin with an old carbon and oxygen star, a white dwarf, and you pile additional mass onto it, sooner or later you’ll arrive at the mass limit for the star to continue to exist within our universe. More mass than about 1.4 solar masses, and the matter would implode and become a black hole.

Just before being converted into a black hole, though, all of the carbon and oxygen nuclei become compressed so closely together that the pressure makes possible the fusion of those nuclei into heavier elements especially nickel and through radioactive decay, iron.

Originally, the obvious mechanism for this explosion was simply that a companion star slowly dumped matter onto the white dwarf. Year after year, the mass of the white dwarf climbed from what likely began after the planetary nebula phase at around 0.7 solar masses, until it reached almost 1.4 solar masses. At that point, nuclei in the center of the star were crushed so closely together that they began driving fusion reactions of the oxygen and carbon nuclei making up the volume of the star.

Things get interesting quickly because the obvious way this ought to proceed is for the fusion reactions to ignite a detonation of the entire star. The energy released ought to drive a shock wave, compressing the overlying matter so that it too fuses. In less than a

ogical variable

second, the entire star ought to fuse to heavier elements in a single intense explosion that rips from the center to the outermost layer of the star, burning everything completely.

During this process, the star shouldn’t expand much because the process is so fast. Instead, the explosion deposits energy into the matter of the star which becomes extremely hot. After that, the entire star expands outward as it explodes into the surrounding universe. Because the detonation happens for every one of these stars when the core is compressed to the same amount, and because you need essentially the same total amount of mass to do that, all of the explosions are about the same.

There are some differences in how fast the progenitor star is spinning and so on. But by and large, the explosions are usefully the same as far as cosmology is concerned.

Given these new ideas, we expect pretty much the same thing to happen. The only difference is that we also expect a bunch of space to be emitted. And reasonably, that emitted space might flow outward through the matter faster than the shock wave. After all, matter consists of standing waves in the ocean of aether. So if you emit a bunch of the aether, it will reasonably drive the expansion of the matter of the star more so than would just the kinetic motions of the heated nuclei.

There is thus reason to suspect that some of the aether emitted, or space flowing out of the exploding star, will exit through the surface of the star prior to the arrival of the shock wave driving the fusion reactions. It really doesn’t make sense to suppose that the shock wave, a matter driven phenomena, ought to be faster than the flow of the medium within which those matter waves are waves, even if the emitted aether is in a compressed photonic form. So it seems to me that we ought to see some sort of puff of the outermost layers coming off of the star along with the first penetration of aether coming out of the star.

This is an important detail, because there is observed in real explosions, some oxygen and carbon flying away from the star at the earliest times of the explosion. If the explosion mechanism is the least complex and most obvious, (namely a detonation), then according

Type Ia Supernovae

137

cosmolo

to current physical models, none of the oxygen or carbon would fly away from the star.

It should all be consumed in the detonation.

As a result, theorists propose various models such as delayed detonation, to explain what’s observed. But these models wind up with asymmetries that aren’t seen in the real explosions. The result is that the most obvious model, a detonation, is abandoned and other models don’t seem to work.

138

Applying the new ideas, a detonation is just what we need to get what we see. The vast majority of the star is exploded, but we observe a small portion of the original material blown outward just like the shells we already observed in the planetary nebulae’s series of concentric shells of gas ejections. It’s the same behavior in a different, more dramatic, event.

What’s perhaps even more interesting though, is that if those fusion reactions are emitting a large volume of space in a short period of time, then its conceivable that the star would inflate as a result. In other words, the Big Bang theory proposes that there was a period of inflation, when space expanded at faster than the speed of light. Matter was carried along with the expanding space and so within any interior region, the matter is moving at slower than light speed. But the space itself was expanding at faster than light speed.

A rapid detonation of an entire stars worth of matter ought to reasonably emit a large volume of space. And we could then imagine that the emission of space would drive the expansion of the matter of the expanding star much like the big bang inflation process.

From the outside, we would never see anything moving at faster than light speed. But we might see an effect of the flow of space outward through the matter of the star.

If space is flowing out of the matter of the star in the first moments, then the light coming from the star would be red shifted. We would be looking in through outward moving space and it would appear as though the star were suddenly moving away from us. A second later when the fusion reactions had ceased, the inflation would also cease. Space

ogical variable

would cease to flow out of the star as it compresses into the space of the surrounding universe.

At that time, we would see blue shifted light from the matter as it interacted with the space of the surrounding universe and rapidly slowed, again like the inflationary epoch.

We would see the light getting brighter, but being red shifted. Then it would be blue shifted and continue to get brighter. And if the space filling the exploding star were to expand at faster than light speed, the most dramatic thing of all might be possible to observe. We might be able to observe a small version of the big bang, from the outside.

I’ll use some big numbers to convey the concept, but the real effect probably wouldn’t be this large.

Imagine that in one second the entire star inflated to a radius equal to 100 AU, or, 100 times the distance from the sun to the earth. At time zero, just before the explosion, we would observe a tiny white dwarf star smaller than our sun, slowly accreting mass. It would be fairly hot, but it would be so small that we wouldn’t even see it unless it happened to be really close by and we happened to be pointing our telescope in that direction just as it exploded.

In the next second, the entire star would detonate and release a huge amount of space that had previously been compressed into the interior of the oxygen and carbon nuclei.

The fusion reactions would release the space and inflate the star until after 1 second the matter how filled an expanse within our universe 100 AU in radius.

We, however, would be observing this from the outside, so what would we see? A first guess would be that in one instant we would see an incredibly dim star, and then a second later we would observe an enormous star 100 AU in radius or a disk, 200 AU in diameter. But we wouldn’t see that even if that is what happened. The first light to reach us would come from the closest point on the star to us. We would in a first instant after the explosion, only see the very closest portion of the inflated stellar ball.

It would take 800 minutes before we would see the first light coming from the perimeter

Type Ia Supernovae

139

cosmolo

of the newly formed sphere. At that point, we would be seeing light emitted 13 hours after the explosion from the point closest to us, and at the same time, we would be seeing the earliest light coming from the perimeter of the star at the first instant of the explosion.

The exciting aspect of this is that we would have 13 hours time to catch the very first light from the expanding fireball, if that fireball emitted enough space to expand by that much so that there was a significant time delay between first light and the last glimmer of first light coming from the perimeter of the star.

140

At one point I thought perhaps things might go like that and that we might be able to observe a radical inflation like behavior of a stellar explosion. But the numbers I compute seem to favor a less dramatic evolution. It appears that the aether emission comes out in “bullets” in the form of photons. There is a percentage of the mass to energy conversion associated with neutrino formation that is a wild card for now, but that’s only around 3 percent of the total energy.

If I assume that the “space emitted” is all in the form of photons, then I need to work with the approximate temperature inside the white dwarf during the explosion. That temperature is in the realm of 1 billion K. The black body peak wavelength for that temperature is around 0.0029 nm, and the energy of a photon with that wavelength is around 6.85E-14 J / photon. The energy released in a type Ia explosion is around 2.0E44 Joules. Crunching the numbers just like the expansion of the universe, but here using the photons that are being produced inside the star I get around 2.92E57 photons. And assuming the wavelength is the diameter of a sphere that they occupy, that gives a total volume of newly emitted “space” as being a sphere with a radius around 21,000 km.

So the light speed time from the closest part of that sphere to us would be less than a tenth of a second and we would never be able to see the inflationary process I described above.

As I’m writing, I just crunch the various equations like the one above, not knowing what’s

ogical variable

going to happen and not much caring since I’m just describing what I know, and I know I don’t know enough!

Anyway, if you’ve studied these supernovae you’ll realize that the above number actually turns out to be very interesting. Because the detonation is supposed to take place in just under a second, and because I just calculated that the emission of space would fill a sphere 21,000 km in radius, and because the white dwarf began at a radius of 2,000 km, the ejecta of the star should be moving at something north of 21,000 km/s.

It turns out that this is exactly in the right ball park for the speed observed for the un burnt carbon and oxygen. Might the acceleration mechanism for the un-burnt oxygen and carbon be the emission of space from the fusion reactions?

Another interesting thing here is that prior to writing this, I hadn’t calculated what the expansion velocity might be. So it was a surprise to me that the value landed right where I already knew the ejecta velocity really was. Remember, I could have more easily come up with a number many orders of magnitude different from any observable feature of the real thing. So its rather surprising that the value that came out of the numbers happened to fit anything associated with these supernovae.

Type Ia Supernovae

141

cosmolo

Type II

supernovae

Type II supernovae are different from type I. They are triggered when a very massive star has exhausted its fuel in its center. In nuclear reactions, we get energy out if the fusion takes place with light elements, elements lighter than iron. And we get energy out if heavier nuclei fission or split apart to lighter elements, hence the rise of all nuclear fission reactors and devices.

142

For a star, beginning with essentially just hydrogen and a small amount of helium, fusion is the only energy producing reaction. But fusion can only proceed until the “fuel” has been converted into iron. Any fusion reactions that randomly happen after that, quench the temperature of the material and suppress further fusion reactions. So a massive star winds up growing an iron core at its center.

We wind up, once again, facing the Chandrasekhar mass limit of 1.4 solar mass. Beyond that mass, anything will collapse into a black hole. But again, prior to reaching that mass, the nuclei are crushed so tightly together that they are heated by the compression to tremendous temperatures. At those temperatures, the photons flying around from nucleus to nucleus are energetic enough to drive the transformation of the protons into neutrons via electron capture.

When that happens, the core rapidly implodes as all the separated iron nuclei are transformed into a ball of neutrons that collapse into one another forming what could be reasonably thought of as a gigantic “atom” nucleus formed entirely of neutrons. This process is tremendously endothermic.

The overlying material of the star suddenly has nothing beneath it, and falls inward, converging toward the center of the star. Again, this is interestingly similar to the way a sonoluminescence bubble implodes. The liquid surrounding a cavity is driven inward by the acoustic pressure. As it does, it converges, accelerates, and attains extraordinary velocities and compressions as a result of the convergence of the matter. Even prior to arriving at the center, the leading edge of the fluid is being heated and compressed to

ogical variable

extreme values compared to the ambient condition of the surrounding liquid.

The same must happen for the overlying material of the star as it falls. And given that the overlying matter was already driving fusion reactions, I can only imagine that the rate of fusion reactions will rapidly increase as the matter converges toward center. And that’s before I ponder how this model would change things.

If I calculate the volume of space that would need to flow into the core as it is transformed endothermically from iron nuclei into neutrons, and I use the microwave background radiation wavelength because I assume the aether is going to come from the outside universe, I wind up with a value the size of a cube around 200 light years on a side. That value doesn’t make sense, so it seems likely that high density photons that are very small must be what are needed.

In other words, the required photons must be coming from the overlying material that was just above the iron core. Because that region is extremely hot, the photons are high energy density and small diameter. If the inward flow of aether pins the overlying material against the inward falling iron nuclei, compressing the matter due to the flow of aether, then the rate of fusion would increase and balance the aether emission from fusion with the aether absorption of iron nuclei disintegrations. ….*********need to sort out what happens as core implodes, where does aether come from and how does that alter the inward flow of overlying matter? Is it pinned to iron core as it implodes? How do photons move through the iron core itself?

If the implosion begins at the CENTER of the iron core, then the center iron falls away from the overlying iron, the photons fall inward and are absorbed, then the chilled iron nuclei fall inward, hit core and stop as they are transformed to neutrons…………but when overlying matter hits, it will drive fusion, exothermic again, ******** ……*******process………..at center, iron nuclei crush into neutrons….. endothermic so they absorb all the photons surrounding the newly forming core, chill-

Type II Supernovae

143

Crab Pulsar and surroundings

144

145

NASA/HST/ASU/J. Hester et al.

cosmolo

146

ing the surrounding spherical shell layer of iron nuclei as photons fly into center.

Gravity then drives the implosion of the entire stars matter, overlying lighter elements and iron nuclei, all. As iron nuclei slam into the growing neutron core, they disintegrate into neutrons, absorbing more photons and accelerating the implosion, but the photons all need to come from the surrounding material………infall accelerates…. And the impacts are quenching UNTIL the iron is consumed, which happens at about 1.4 solar masses or just before. After that, fusion releases aether in quantities greater than needed to drive iron disintegrations and the aether flow becomes partly inward and partly outward, accelerating to primarily outward with heating and increasing aether emission. Inward fall is halted, aether flow now heads outward, compressing overlying matter and increasing the fusion rate as well as initiating the outward expansion of the stars matter turning it into an explosion.

The mass of the neutron star, with all the original iron and some additional iron formed during first fusion reactions now has a core of condensed aether, a black hole, that isn’t fully confined so it begins to pulse and boil after the overlayers are ejected………..birth of neutron star and pulsar……….********

ogical variable

Giant Hubble Mosaic of the Crab Nebula

147

NASA, ESA, J. Hester and A. Loll (Arizona State University)

Type II Supernovae

cosmolo

Chapter : Galaxies

and

Black Holes

M87

M87 Galaxy showing Hole Jet in Core, H

148

NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Chris Mihos (Case Western Reserve University)/ESO

Chris Mihos (Case Western Reserve University)/ESO

ogical variable

M87, Black Hole Jet Detail/ Close Up, optical, Hubble

Black Hubble

NASA and John Biretta (STScI/JHU)

M87, Black Hole Jet, Flaring, several images from 1999 to 2006, STIS and ACS

Galaxies

and

black

holes

149

cosmolo

ARP 120 (NGC 4438)

Chris Mihos (Case Western Reserve University)/ESO

150

Chris Mihos (Case Western Reserve University)/ESO

ogical variable AVP120 = NGC4438 Black Holes

NASA and Jeffrey Kenney and Elizabeth Yale (Yale University)

151

Galaxies

and

black

holes

cosmolo

Calculations In this section of the book I’ll convey some ideas on how to use the concepts above to make some estimates for various properties of things within our universe. There are myriad different ways one might try to apply the ideas. Precisely how space or aether flows out of stars, or into black holes, isn’t crystal clear. The precise geometry of a photon, electron, proton or neutron are not clear. The relation between the emission of aether, and the volume of space produced by that emission are not clear.

152

And worse, there are many different ways one might try to compute what we ought to see. I’ve tried many of them and all but one so far, return absurd results. In this section, I’ll present that one method that seems to yield curious results that have some semblance to our real universe. That said, at best, I’m only performing a crude approximation on any given computation. My input values are not precise, and my output values are as well, not precise. I dial in the values so that they match what I compute to be the values I ought to get. So in this sense everything that follows is a “fudge”.

That said, it’s also true that once I select a “fudge” factor to fit data in one instance, I stick with that value when I use different equations to fit to different phenomena. In this sense, given that the same “fudge” factor manages to produce curious results in different applications, it might be that there’s something to what I’m doing. And it also might simply be that I stumbled upon a whacko way of crunching some numbers that just happens to fit into well known stellar and galactic behavior functions.

Hopefully these initial words are sufficiently apologetic that you will forgive the imprecision and focus instead on the substance.

To put it otherwise, suppose we lived in the era of Ptolemy, believing that the heavens revolved around the earth and I proposed, “Hey guys, if we put the sun at the center, and then maybe have a short list of planets instead of travelling stars, by drawing circles on the dirt and using a stick, it seems that we could understand the retrograde motions of

ogical variable

the various planets if we adopt that the planets closest to the sun happen to be moving faster than those further away”.

In a similarly imprecise manner, let me describe what I do that leads to some interesting results.

Throughout the book, I’ve alluded to the idea that aether, or space, flows out of stars and flows into black holes. To run some calculations we now need to get much more precise in what we mean by those comments. To begin, I made the assertion early on that the universe is a vast ocean of aether. Within the ocean we have a variety of acoustic waves that can interact in a variety of ways. I also mentioned that mass corresponds to a quantity of aether.

So given that a cubic meter of “empty space” corresponds to a cubic meter of that aether ocean, there must be some quantity of aether associated with one cubic meter of what we think of as nothing, or, empty space. I also discussed the idea that what we call “spacetime” is a structure of standing waves within that ocean of aether. Notice that “structure of standing waves” describes an acoustic structure, and not a quantity of medium within which the acoustic waves exist.

Spacetime, then, is like an acoustic standing wave, or structure of sound waves, in air.

And air is thus like “aether”. We don’t talk about how much sound weighs. But we can talk about how much mass a cubic meter of air has at sea level. Likewise, we can talk about how many grams of aether are in one cubic meter of empty space. We can also talk about the structure of standing waves called spacetime that exist within that cubic meter of medium.

For this section I’ll reserve the term “space” to mean, some volume within our universe.

“Spacetime” means, the acoustic standing wave structure to which all matter and photonic resonances are coupled. So “spacetime” is one geometry of acoustic waves. Objects like photons, electrons, and all particles are also acoustic waves within the aether ocean that are coupled to and driven by, the spacetime acoustic oscillations.

Calculations

153

cosmolo

That leaves aether. Aether is the medium that fills the universe. It is compressible and to my best guestimate, it can also under extreme conditions, condense into a far more dense state. Think of water vapor as compared to liquid water for instance. The liquid is a thousand times as dense as the vapor. To make these ideas work, aether must be conserved. Further, quantity of aether equates to mass of object. Thus, what we think of as empty space, and which in this model must be an ocean of aether vapor, must have originated from some number of grams mass.

154

Combining the above idea with Einstein’s E=mc^2 leaves us no option but to expect that aether must be flowing out of stars. But we don’t yet know *how* it flows out of those stars. In other words, is space flowing outward? Is the spacetime standing wave structure precessing outward? Is the emitted aether carried outward by the photons and neutrinos emitted during the nuclear reactions in the core of the star? Is the flow a combination of these possibilities? Just how does the aether flow outward?

I don’t know for certain. But there is one way we can adopt that seems to lead to some curious results. I think that photons are carrying the aether outward, as are neutrinos.

But it may also be that some of the aether is fully transformed into “space” and thus forms new “spacetime” acoustic structures during the fusion process. If so, then there ought to be a velocity of precession for the spacetime standing waves.

The easiest to explore is the idea that photons carry the aether outward. And at any rate, it appears that most likely, the majority of the aether is carried outward in this manner.

A few percent of the total aether might be flowing outward in the form of space itself but for now I’ll ignore that small percentage and focus on the big gorilla, photons.

Let’s suppose for these calculations that photons are the carriers of aether. We know from the first assertion that mass corresponds to a quantity of aether. And from current physics we know that mass corresponds to a quantity of energy. When mass disappears from matter during fusion reactions, photons carrying energy are emitted (among other products depending on the reactions considered). And we can easily compute the energy

ogical variable

of a photon.

So, we can also easily compute the quantity of aether associated with a photon as it’s just the “mass equivalent” of the photon’s energy. In this way we know that a gamma ray or x-ray carry more aether than do optical or infrared photons, because we know they have higher energies.

We also know that lower energy photons have longer wavelengths. A wavelength is a physical dimension of length. So it gives us a sense of physical size. In other words, counter intuitively, a low energy photon is larger than a high energy photon. This seems like it ought to be wrong. If there’s more aether packed into the higher energy photon, then one might think it ought to be larger. But apparently it doesn’t work that way.

We can instead think in terms that the lower energy photon has had it’s aether expanded more, so that it’s at a lower density and carries less potential energy. One way or another, if we are going to run some computations, we need to make a guess as to how large a photon is. In other words, if I have a box of aether that is say 1 cubic meter in volume, and I inject a photon inside, how much will the volume of the box increase?

Now current physics would of course say the volume would not increase. But that is where this model and the current model are different. In this model, the volume of the box filled with aether and spacetime waves would increase when a photon was inserted, assuming that we “created” the photon within the box. In other words, I think that when a photon is created from some process, the rest of the aether ocean is pushed outward away from the place of formation. This is again much the same as how the earth’s atmosphere is pushed away from a rocket launch pad.

What we need, is an equation to tell us what the volume of a photon is as a function of its other known properties. What I’ve done is to adopt that the volume of a photon is equal to the volume of a sphere with a diameter equal to the wavelength of the photon. This is a precise statement. I use this equality in all of the following computations. So this is my “fudge” factor, or at least the first of two.

Calculations

155

cosmolo

The reason I adopted this equality is that I think we can approximate the geometry of a photon by the geometry of a vortex. Specifically, a smoke ring like vortex, though the actual geometry that will account for polarization and other properties is certainly more complex. Still, doing this for whatever reason leads to interesting results.

156

Using the above concepts we can do new things like estimate the Hubble expansion of the universe, the volume of the universe, and so on, all from the emissions of aether from stars over the age of the universe or some period of evolutionary time in the age of the universe. We can and will, for instance, estimate how much the local universe grew over a 1 second period of time across an expanse of 1 mega parsec radius sphere of our local universe. Doing so yields the Hubble expansion value.

If we consider a smoke ring vortex in more detail as described in earlier chapters, we realize that for a real smoke ring vortex, only the inner core is actually moving with significant forward velocity. And that core makes up a small percentage of the total volume of medium associated with the vortex. I have adopted 5 percent as the “moving volume of a photon vortex�. It seems to work, so I do it, and this is the second fudge factor we’ll use in what follows.

That second factor allows us to estimate the average velocity for the flow of aether out of a star. And it may thus open a door to estimating stellar mass loss rate as will be shown.

Combining the above two guesses, we can attempt to do things like predict the spacetime curvature imposed by the flux of photons out of a star. And with that, we can make guesses as to how matter close to but outside of a star might behave. In other words, we can make some estimates as to which stars ought to have strong or weak stellar winds, hot or cold coronae, and which stars ought to be large and which ought to be small in radius.

On that point, keep in mind that a white dwarf star the same mass as the sun is dramatically smaller. It can be on the order of the size of the earth, while containing a mass

ogical variable

greater than the mass of our sun for instance.

With this brief introduction, let’s now make some estimates for some observable properties of things within our universe.

157

Calculations

cosmolo

The Hubble Expansion of the Universe Let’s begin by considering the expansion of the universe. And let me remind you that the concepts here were arrived at around 1996, well before the acceleration of the expansion of the universe was recognized.

What is the volume of all photons emitted since the big bang?

158

A proper treatment of this question would require a great deal of work, combined with integrations of all of the luminosity generating objects across the universe across the entire age of the universe. I am not competent to do this effort justice. But I can muddle a bit and make some simplifications and approximations that allow me to get a number.

First of all, (and fortunately), our sun is an average star in the scheme of the universe of stars. It is about middle of the road so to speak. As such, we can make a first approximation that it can stand in as our average star. Next, we need to know an approximate age of the universe. This is fortunately a topic of intense research and the value is reasonably well known to be around 13.7 billion years.

We also know the luminosity of the sun. And we also have estimates that there are on order of 3.0E22 stars in the visible universe according to atlasoftheuniverse.com. This is a guess and may be wrong by several orders of magnitude. So we shouldn’t expect any calculations to come out better than that precision. I’ll boldly adopt that we can guess the energy emitted by all those stars, on average, is the same as emitted by the sun.

The sun emits around 3.85E26 J/s. In other words, it emits about 3.85E26 watts of power in the form of various wavelengths of light. We can now estimate the total energy emitted by all the stars of the observable universe over the age of the universe. It is simply the product of, number of stars, times, power per star, times, age of the universe. That is to say, the energy emitted is around: E = 3.0E22 stars * 3.85E26 W * 13.7E9 years

ogical variable

Or

E = 5.0E66 Joules

Now to convert that amount of energy into a volume, we need to make a guess as to what wavelength of photon to use for our average photon, volumetrically speaking. Remember that a high energy photon has a lot of aether in it, but is small. Whereas a low energy photon has a smaller amount of aether in it, and is large. So from a volume point of view, longer wavelength photons win out. Our local universe is bathed in photons from the very earliest epochs of our universe. The first light, so to speak, is that of the microwave background radiation. And that radiation has a wavelength of about 1.83mm.

The energy of a Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) photon at 1.83mm wavelength is 1.08E-22 Joules. On line calculators can give you these values by the way. With this value we can compute the number of CBR photons it would take to result in the total emitted energy. The value is just N = 5.0E66 J / 1.08E-22 J = 4.63E88 photons.

According to the previous description, the volume of these CBR photons would be around, V = (4pi/3) * (wavelength / 2)^3 = 3.21E-9 m^3.

Multiplying the number of photons N, by the volume per photon V, gives us the total volume of the universe in photons, V_ph = 4.63E88 photons * 3.21E-9 m^3/photon V_universe = V_ph = 2.0E79 m^3 We can now compute the volume of the universe in a different way. We can use the age of the universe, 13.7 billion years, and compute the volume of a sphere with a radius of 13.7 billion light years. That volume is, V_universe = (4pi/3) * (13.7E9 light years)^3 V_universe = 9.1E78 m^3 Now while this is a rather crude method for making this estimate, it’s curious that these

Calculations

159

cosmolo

two methods yield results within a factor of 10 or so out of 79 orders of magnitude.

Let’s try this again, but this time using a more local portion of the universe. Admittedly, this is really just a re-hash of the first computation. In other words, if the first one worked, then this one must also work. However, it gives us insight into the method required to perform the calculation, and in that, it is useful to carry out the exercise.

160

Let’s consider the local universe within 10 megaparsecs. That is to say, about 30 million light years radius of our current location in the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy. 30 million light years reaches out across our local group of galaxies. It’s a big distance in human terms, but tiny in the scope of the entire universe.

According to the Hubble expansion rate of the universe, space is expanding at a rate of around 72 kilometers per second per megaparsec. This means that in 1 second, a distance across our universe of 10 megaparsecs will increase in length by 10 times 72 kilometers, or, 720 kilometers. This is a distance we can relate to as it’s the distance an airplane can fly in about an hour. In contrast, the 10 megaparsecs is a distance that is hard to fathom based on common experience.

Still, we can do the math and get an answer as to what the increase in volume would be based on the Hubble expansion, and we can repeat the calculation to determine what that increase in volume would be based on the emission of photons over the age of the universe.

To begin, let’s just find the change in volume based on the Hubble Law and the expansion of the universe that’s well accepted. To get the change in volume, we could use either of two methods. We could for example compute the volume of the spherical region of the universe before and after one second has passed and then subtract the two to get the difference. Unfortunately this method requires the use of really big numbers, and computers tend to choke.

A different method is to compute the volume of a spherical shell with a 10 megaparsec

ogical variable

radius, and a thickness of 720 kilometers. This method is straight forward and computers can handle it without round off errors creating problems. To compute the volume change this way we multiply the area of the spherical region by the thickness of the shell.

In equation form this is, V = A * dR = 4 pi R^2 dR, where R is 10 megaparsecs and dR is 720 kilometers. The answer we get this way is, V = 4 * 3.14 * (10E6 parsecs)^2 * (720,000 meters) V = 8.6E53 m^3 We can now repeat the determination of how much the universe should have increased in volume within that region by determining on average, how many stars ought to live within that region of the universe. In other words, what percentage of all the stars in the universe live in that percentage of the total volume of the universe.

The volume of the visible universe is around 13.7E9 light years radius. And there are around 3.0E22 stars in the total universe. So on average, the number of stars within our 10 Mpc radius region is around, N = 3.0E22 stars * (4 pi / 3) (10Mpc / 13.7E9 light years)^3 N = 1.69E15 stars We now need the amount of energy and then photons emitted from that number of stars over the one second period of time.

E = 1.69E15 stars * 3.85E26 W * 1.0 seconds E = 6.5E41 Joules The next step is a little confusing until you think about it and work with emissions from individual stars. We’ll do that in a while, so for now the reason for doing this may seem confusing. The volume of a photon, if we assert that the diameter of a photon is equal to its wavelength, is a cubic function of the wavelength. This is just the formula for the volume of a sphere. But an average photon emitted by an average star has a wavelength

Calculations

161

cosmolo

of around 500nanometers, whereas a CBR photon has a wavelength of around 1.83 millimeters. The CBR photons are dramatically larger in size.

Passing through every part of the universe are photons from nearby stars, and as well, from the earliest epochs of our universe’s existence. The majority of expansion thus derives from those early emitted photons, and not from photons emitted by nearby stars.

For this reason, we need to use the CBR photon wavelength in this calculation.

162

Next, therefore, we need to determine the number of photons emitted by those stars and by the CBR, long ago. But doing this precisely is hard. An easy short cut that ought to be approximate is to just use the CBR wavelength. But we must keep in mind that to improve this calculation we should really be integrating all of the photons passing through our local universe, and probably also factoring in that many of the photons are sharing the same space at any given instant. But this is at least an approximation and a place to start exploring.

So, we’ll for now just use the CBR photon properties. As before, the energy of a CBR photon is E = 1.08E-22 Joules. By dividing the energy emitted by this energy per photon we obtain the number of photons flying around within our 10 Mpc radius sphere.

N = 6.5E41 J / 1.08E-22 J N = 6.02E63 photons.

We can now determine the volume we expect this local part of the universe to have expanded in one second. To do this we multiply the number of photons by the volume per photon as follows: V = N * V_photon = 6.02E63 photons * 3.21E-9 m^3/photon V = 1.9E55 m^3 based on the volume of the photons emitted in one second.

And from above, we had, V = 8.6E53 m^3 based on geometry and the physical volume.

ogical variable

This value is about a factor of 22 larger than our previous calculation for how much the local universe should have expanded. In other words, out of about 54 orders of magnitude, we landed within about 1 order of magnitude of the same answer.

Again, though, these are really two different ways of performing the same calculation, at least the way I did it. Let’s next explore the emissions of space from single stars to see what falls out of the approach.

163

Calculations

cosmolo

The Flow of Space out of the Sun To begin, let’s consider a star we all know and love, the sun. The sun’s properties are known better than any other star so it makes sense to begin here. Later, we can apply the same methods to other stars across the entire Hertsprung Russell diagram where star luminosity is plotted against the stars surface temperature.

We will work with a number of properties of each star. These include the star’s mass, luminosity, black body surface temperature, and radius. For the sun the values are:

164

Mass = 1.99E30 Kg Radius = 696E6 meters Luminosity = 3.846E26 Joules / second Temperature = 5778 K Next, we need to determine the average photon flux. This is again, an approximation. A complete solution will likely integrate all photons of all wavelengths across the full EM spectrum. But using the peak in the black body spectrum for a wide range of stars seems to yield interesting and potentially useful values, so that’s what I do since that’s what I’m able to do.

We can get the wavelength for photons at the peak of a black body spectrum with a temperature of 5778 degrees Kelvin by just going to an on line calculator and typing in the black body temperature. Also using online calculators, we can get the energy of those photons on a per photon basis as we’ll also be needing that value.

Lambda = Wavelength = 501 nm Energy per photon = 3.96E-19 Joules Volume per photon = 6.58E-20 m^3 per photon We can now divide the sun’s luminosity by the energy per photon to get an average (a proxy for solar emission) flux of photons per second.

ogical variable

N = 3.846E26 / 3.96E-19 N = 9.7E44 photons per second And from this we can get the volume of space flowing out of the sun, per second, in the form of photons.

V_photons = 9.7E44 photons in one second * 6.58E-20 m^3 per photon V_photons = 6.38E25 m^3 in one second, or, V_photons = 6.38E16 m^3 in one nanosecond We can now repeat the calculation we did for our local universe and determine the volume of a spherical shell with a radius equal to the sun, and with a radial thickness equal to the distance light travels in 1 nanosecond. In this way we’ll get the volume of space within that region, and from above, we already have the volume of photons within that region.

V_space V_space

= 4 * pi * (696E6 meters)^2 * (300E6 m/s * 1 ns) = 1.83E18 m^3

From this we see that the volume of photons near the surface of the sun makes up around three thousandths of the volume of space near the surface of the sun.

Now that we have this value, we can pose a new question. How fast, on average, is space moving just outside the sun, and, in what direction is it moving?

The direction is easy. Space is moving outward and is carried by the photons. Think of photons as described in the earlier text, as tiny smoke ring vortices, except that rather than air and smoke making them up, they are vortices within the aether ocean and constitute regions where the aether is both compressed, and moving. A photon is, an aether vortex, according to this model. And it carries with it a measure of, aether just as a vortex in air carries with it a measure of air.

Calculations

165

cosmolo

Part of any patch of empty space just outside the sun is made up of photon vortices, and part is made up of just empty space with spacetime acoustic waves permeating it. The latter is stationary, whereas the former is moving outward at the speed of light. The net direction, or vector, for the photon flux is just radially away from the sun. So a good first guess would be that we could average out the local velocity of space by multiplying the volume of photons by the speed of light, adding that to the volume that is not photons multiplied by zero (since it isn’t moving), adding the two and dividing by the total volume.

166

But to get things to work consistently, I find that by using about 6 percent of the determined photon volume, things work better. And this makes intuitive sense if you think about the nature and structure of a real smoke ring vortex. The entire visible vortex is not moving forward. Only the centermost core, like the core of an apple, is actually moving forward. The surrounding parts move outward, then back inward, and they only advance as they are passing through the center of the vortex as the air rolls through the center of the vortex.

Whatever the reason, what I do is to multiply the photon volume by 6 percent and things seem to work out consistently.

Photon moving volume is thus, V = 6.38E16 * 0.06 = 3.82E15 m^3 In equation form, I take, Average velocity = (6.38E16 m^3 * 0.06 * 300e6 m/s + (1.83E18 – 6.38E16 m^3) * 0.0 m/s) / 1.83E18 m^3 The second term, the velocity of empty space is multiplied by zero. So it just drops out and all we really have is the percentage of space that is associated with photons, and only 6 percent of that, the actual moving part of the vortex, divided by the total volume of space within which the photons exist. The equation therefore just reduces to:

ogical variable

Average Velocity = 6.38E16 m^3 * 0.06 * 300E6 m/s / 1.83E18 m^3, or, Average Velocity = 627 kilometers/s Now what’s interesting about that number is that it’s the surface escape velocity for the sun. The solar surface escape velocity is about 618 km/s. I think what this number tells us is that on average, the space around the sun is effectively moving outward with this velocity. To say this in a different way, I think that the flow of photons away from the sun, outside of the sun but near the sun, just balances the gravity of the sun.

To be fair, let’s not forget that I plugged in some fudge factor numbers here because this result seemed to me to be what ought to exist. If we plug in a different ratio for the moving volume, we could get about any velocity for space we want to get. And it may well be that we should pick a different value, probably a bit lower. Further, at best, this method only gives us a sort of average velocity of spacetime. But it may be that it gives us more of a maximum velocity of spacetime.

We could say this differently by saying that the flow of photons away from the sun impose a spacetime curvature upon the space surrounding the sun that just offsets the spacetime curvature imposed on the same space surrounding the sun, by the mass of the sun. In other words, I think the flow of photons imposes a frame dragging effect upon the spacetime around the sun. And if you think about it, if we consider a position internal to the sun, we won’t get this same result because we will have photons moving in all directions past any point. In contrast, once we exit the photosphere, there develops a net direction for the photon flux or more to the point, for the photon volume flux.

Within the sun, smaller, shorter wavelength, higher energy photons head outward, and larger, fewer, longer wavelength lower energy photons head inward. In that way, the spacetime curvature imposed by the flux of photons is close to zero everywhere inside of the sun (I think but should try to compute it) in spite of there being a net flow of energy that is heading outward and delivers the luminosity of the sun.

Calculations

167

cosmolo

Everything aside, if photons flowing in a net direction curve spacetime for the matter within that region of spacetime, then it makes sense that solar prominences could just float above the sun for days or weeks at a time without crashing back to the surface. It makes sense that coronal mass ejections could be ejected if they tip the balance point slightly away from where the matter remains compressed into the sun.

168

Perhaps the 6 percent should be made slightly less so that the outward photon effect is a bit lower than I’ve set it here. And if you think about how photons must really be flowing through the space around the sun, you’ll quickly notice that photons are moving in all directions as they are shot away from the surface of the sun. Close to the surface, the net direction is radially outward. But photons are moving laterally too. And as a point we might consider rises up and away from the sun, the photons passing by become increasingly radial so that their individual effects ought to increase due to that aspect, while the total effect ought to be decreasing because the number of photons per cubic meter will be decreasing as we move further from the sun.

For a while, though, those two opposing aspects of the photon induced spacetime curvature are counter to one another. Only after we move a good distance from the sun where the sun begins to approximate a point source of photons so that all photons passing nearby will be close to parallel and radial away from the sun, will we arrive at a place where the imposed spacetime curvature effect drop down to an approximate 1/R^2 decay rate with increasing radius from the sun. Close to the sun the fall of rate may be slow for a while, and then drop off faster than 1/R^2, and then finally wind up with a slowing rate of reduction in photon effect that winds up ultimately matching a 1/R^2 fall off.

From the perspective of an individual particle above the sun, the spacetime within which it exists could be curved so that it accelerates away from the sun if there is an abnormally large concentration of photons flying past and nearby to the particle as they leave the sun. The spacetime within which it exists could be curved so that the particle accelerates toward the sun if there is a dearth of photons. And it could be flat if there are an average number of photons flying past. In this way, the solar wind could be comprised of photons that interact with regions of spacetime curved so that the atoms and ions are

ogical variable

accelerated away from the sun.

Indeed, the effect I’m describing here, to be crystal clear, is a spacetime curvature effect.

The photons do not strike the matter that gets accelerated. Rather, they simply pass through nearby spacetime and impose a temporary curvature upon the spacetime that the particle is immersed within. Lots of photons fly past, each imposing a brief, small, curvature of the local spacetime.

The above statements hopefully make obvious a way to test the above idea. What I’ve said above is that the communication of the effect is via a curvature to the structure of the spacetime acoustic standing waves. As such, it is an effect that couples to mass, not charge. All matter should experience this effect, not just ions. Therefore, neutral atoms that cannot be accelerated by electro-magnetic fields, should be accelerated according to this effect.

Further, it doesn’t matter what the charge of a particle is, it should experience the same acceleration no matter what charge it has. And further still, it doesn’t matter what the mass of the particle is, it should experience an acceleration and follow the same velocity profile as a lighter atom or ion. All particles should experience the same overall acceleration. And there should of course also be a net red shift imposed upon the photons as they interact with the spacetime in order to curve it and convey a portion of their energy to accelerate the solar wind ions and coronal mass ejections.

Calculations

169

cosmolo

The Acceleration of the Polar Solar Wind Before we apply the previous concepts to a variety of different stars with vastly different properties than has the sun, let’s consider a few more solar behaviors. The solar wind is observed to accelerate away from the sun in an unusual manner. A variety of different ions are observed to attain velocities that are all the same in spite of their having very different masses for the particles, and in spite of those particles having significantly different charges.

170

In fact, we can only observe ions and their motions via the light they emit. We cannot (easily) observe neutral particles directly. We can at times observe absorption lines, but in the solar wind the density is too low to make this practical. So it’s possible that neutral atoms are being accelerated the same as charged ions, we don’t know. I expect they are.

Further, even if neutral atoms are accelerated through the hot corona, they will become ionized as they interact with the hot corona. If the particles are accelerated up through the coronal holes that exist over the poles, or that exist at other latitudes now and then, and we later observe them using spacecraft located near earth, it’s possible they were charged when they left the sun but then captured an electron along their way to become neutral. I’m told we can’t (at all or at least not easily) detect various neutral atoms with our current observatories.

So there isn’t any obvious or easy way to prove that neutral atoms are being accelerated along with charged ions. But there are clues.

What we can observe are different kinds of ions. For example we can detect iron ions with various numbers of electrons removed so that they have a high or low charge state.

And we can then see whether they happen to be getting accelerated by the same or different amounts, depending on their charge. It turns out, if you read the literature a bit, that most papers talk about the energy of the observed ions in terms of energy per nucleon.

In otherwords, it is for some reason convenient to normalize things to a mass propor-

ogical variable

tional “heating” or “acceleration to higher velocity and thus, kinetic energy” of the ions.

In a paper on the solar wind ion heating, the ions of Ne, O, He, and Protons were detected.

In relation to mass proportional heating, considering the data leads one to think that the neon ions are preferentially heated since they have the largest temperature deduced from the measurements. But what’s interesting is that the “heating” is close to mass proportional.

The current approach explores different ways that cyclotron and other heating mechanisms might heat each of the various ions to the temperatures observed. But what we need to remember is that “temperature” really means, “average kinetic energy” of the matter under consideration. And kinetic energy is really a result of the velocity of the individual particles. A rock thrown has a kinetic energy that is equal to its mass times its velocity squared and then divided by 2, or, KE = mv^2 / 2.

That’s why when a grain of sand slams into the earth’s atmosphere, it is immediately ionized and forms a shooting star in the night sky that we see on earth about a hundred miles from where the process actually took place. They are really bright objects that are relatively far away. Anyway, if we take individual atoms and some how throw them at a target at the same high velocity, the heavy atom will have more kinetic energy than will the light atom. When the heavy atom hits something, it will make a bigger flash than when the light atom hits the same thing at the same velocity.

The above is the foundation of what’s sometimes called, kinetic temperature. It is the temperature that will develop if you fire one object at another object at high velocity. The shooting stars are travelling at speeds around and above 10 km/s. And at those velocities they are moving fast enough that their kinetic energy is sufficient to ionize them into what we see. Solar wind speeds are up in the 400km/s to 800km/s realm, so much faster than a “shooting star” in the night sky.

With the solar wind acceleration, it turns out that scientists think in terms of one out of two different ways to consider the process. First, we can think in terms of various ways

Calculations

171

cosmolo

that some form(s) of EM fields interact with a variety of different ions to accelerate (and therefore heat) them. This is the path being studied for solar wind heating. The scientists notice that the heating is close to mass proportional, but not quite. Heavier ions have been heated to a higher temperature. For ions Ne, O, He, P, relative to mass proportional heating and setting the Ne temperature as the base line, O has been heated to 80 percent of mass proportional, He to 60 percent, and P to 40 percent of the mass proportional expected values.

172

One way to understand this is that the heavier ions are gaining more energy from whatever the electro-magnetic heating mechanism happens to be.

To accomplish that, we need to have EM fields with specific frequencies to excite each different ionic charge to mass ratio ion. It also means we cannot with this mechanism heat any neutral atoms. We need a different frequency of EM energy for Ne+1 than we do for Ne+2, or Ne+3, or Ne+6, and so on. Each and every different ionic species needs EM energy to exist that is at the right frequency to heat the specific ion being considered.

But that isn’t enough. We also need to balance the amount of energy in each of those EM frequencies so that each ion is heated close to mass proportionally.

The EM fields are proposed to come from currents within the moving matter within the interior of the sun. Yet the acceleration is observed to continue out to around 20 solar radii. Think about that for a moment. Currents within the sun are supposed to create a host of frequencies of EM radiation. Then, the power in each frequency band that will couple to each ion needs to be tuned so that each ion is heated almost mass proportionally. And then, the shape of the fields needs to be such that the ions continue to be accelerated while they travel from just above the photosphere, out to 20 solar radii.

You see, the ideas involved make sense when you ponder how to accelerate one ion of one charge to mass ratio. When we ponder the problem myopically this way, we can think in terms of cyclotron acceleration and heating of individual ions. But how do you accelerate a host of ions with a range of charge to mass ratios that are all mixed together

ogical variable

in the wind? And remember that the region above the solar poles is a very hard vacuum, meaning, these ions are not colliding with one another (very often) during the acceleration process.

They are accelerating due to their interaction with the EM fields directly and solely. Put another way, the ions we observe are not being heated because they are in a really hot furnace, they are being accelerated via an interaction with electromagnetic fields of some form. (I hope I’m not over the top here but at least this is my take).

To me, while the ideas make sense at first blush, when you combine all the requirements into a single pot, they become absurd. The focus is on individual ion heating, one at a time, ignoring that the EM fields need to accelerate a host of ions. All those EM fields, added together, will no longer have effective individual frequencies and powers that match what’s needed in both frequency and power of the fields. And even if we might propose some geometry of plasma currents that got things started at under 1 solar radius from the photosphere, how could the effect possibly continue out to 20 solar radii without a hiccup?

At least it makes no sense to me and one scientist I spoke with many years ago at a SOHO space satellite conference in Maine, raised his eyebrows and nodded in agreement when I posed that the ideas make sense one ion at a time, but not for the entire group out to such a great distance.

I think there is a completely different, (upside down we might say), manner in which we can explore the problem of solar wind ion acceleration. This path begins with a single, common, heating mechanism. All atoms and or ions are accelerated together and by the same amount, give or take a bit as each will have experienced somewhat different concentrations of photons and thus somewhat different photonic frame dragging induced spacetime curvatures. All of the atoms and or ions will be accelerated to about the same average velocity, not temperature.

From there, the rare interactions that do occur will mix the energies of the ions so that

Calculations

173

cosmolo

they move in the direction of thermal equilibrium. That means that as rare collisions happen, a range of ion “temperatures” (ionization levels) will evolve from the relatively similar velocity field. If the total kinetic energy was evenly mixed, then perhaps we might wind up with precisely mass proportional final temperatures. But the reality is that when a pea rams into a bowling ball, it’s the pea that gets reflected and the bowling ball barely knows it got hit.

174

In other words, as the bulk wind thermalizes, the protons and electrons are essentially the only carriers or messengers for what the wind temperature ought to be. Collisions are rare to begin with. And given that the vast majority of the wind is made up of hydrogen atoms (or protons once ionized), virtually all collisions with heavier ions will result from proton or electron collisions. Approximately zero iron ions will collide with other iron ions for instance. But if they did, we should observe an unusually large ionization state for a very tiny number of iron ions..

To understand this, let’s consider two atoms, a hydrogen atom and an iron atom. The iron atom has a mass 56 times larger than the hydrogen atom. So if we accelerate both of them by the same amount, to the same velocity, and then slam them into something, the iron atom will be 56 times “hotter” than the hydrogen atom. If we add a few more atoms into the mix, say Neon, Oxygen, and Helium, then compared to the hydrogen atom (proton) they will have temperatures that are 22, 16, and 4 times hotter respectively.

If we make a guess that the fast solar wind, with an average velocity of 800km/s, has a velocity dispersion of about 200km/s, we can then make some guesses as to what resulting temperatures we might be able to observe.

The velocity dispersion simply means that the fastest particles would be moving at around 1000km/s, and the slowest at around 600km/s. If a fast particle rams into a slow particle then the collision velocity would be 400km/s. At 400km/s, the effective temperatures for iron, neon, oxygen, helium, and hydrogen ions would be 540, 192, 154, 38.5, and 9.7 million degrees K, respectively. In other words, with the same collision velocity, the iron ion carries about 56 times the energy of the proton. These temperatures are mass pro-

ogical variable

portional.

Another refinement we can guess at deals with why heavier ions ought to attain a higher effective temperature or charge state. The abundance by numbers of particles is such that there are very few of the ions other than hydrogen (protons), by orders of magnitude. There are also very few collisions in the sparse plasma. We can probably count the number of collisions on fingers and toes out to 20 solar radii. This means that the odds of a fast iron ion hitting a slow iron or any other species ion other than protons is near zero, with a bit more chance for hitting a helium ion. As a first cut though, we can just assume that all collisions encountered by a heavy ion are with protons or electrons.

And for this refinement I’ll also ignore the electrons.

What’s important is the relative velocity between the proton and the heavy ion, say, Fe. We’ll use an approach velocity of 400km/s. It doesn’t matter whether we think in terms of the proton moving and the iron ion being stationary or the other way around. So let’s for discussion adopt that the proton is moving and the heavy Fe ion is stationary.

At 400km/s the proton has the energy it would have on average if it came from a 10 million degree K plasma. As it approaches the Fe ion at some charge state, having a much larger mass than the proton, the Fe ion will basically just sit there as the proton collides and ricochets off of the Fe ion, driving the Fe ion up to a new higher ionization state if the proton had enough energy to eject another electron.

But the Fe ion would have some recoil velocity that it would attain prior to any ionization process. If we repeat the example using say, oxygen, or helium, we would find that prior to ionization the lighter ions would have attained a somewhat larger recession velocity than would have the iron ion. Think in terms of shooting a BB at a bowling ball, vs shooting it at a marble. The marble will recoil more than the bowling ball. After ionization things change, so I’m talking about what happens up to and just before any ionization process gets driven.

Because the lighter ions will be accelerated away from the proton during the approach

Calculations

175

cosmolo

of the proton, what we’re saying is that the lighter ions will have gained a larger velocity prior to the impact that might drive an ionization process. But if that’s so, then the differential velocity between the proton and a lighter ion will be smaller than would be the differential velocity between the proton and an iron ion.

In other words, it should appear that the lighter ions wind up with an ionization charge state that is at a somewhat lower level. And the degree to which it is lower should track with the target (heavy) ion mass ratio compared to the heaviest ion in the list of ions being studied. Indeed, this is what is observed.

176

But the observations are being interpreted oppositely. They are being interpreted such that the heavier ions were heated a bit more than the lighter ions, for some reason. What I’m saying is that all of the ions are perhaps being “heated” the same via acceleration, but then the lighter ions fail to be driven up to as large an ionization charge state because they can accelerate away from the in coming proton and thus reduce the collision velocity that will ultimately drive the ionization process.

ogical variable

177

Calculations

cosmolo

Time Required to Inflate the Solar Core This calculation is interesting and potentially relates to supernova explosions. Running the numbers for the sun is fairly easy to do, so let’s do it. The core of the sun has a temperature around 15 million degrees K. The radius of the zone referred to as the core goes out to about 0.20 solar radii.

Using the same methods as before, we can determine the properties of an average photon for a black body at the temperature of the core. Doing this we get:

178

T_average = Lambda = Energy = Luminosity = N_photons = V_photon = Radius_sun = Radius_core = V_core_sun =

10E6 K 0.290 nm (the photon wavelength) 6.85E-16 Joules per photon 3.84E26 Joules per second L / E = 5.61E41 photons per second 1.28E-29 m^3 per photon 696E6 meters 0.25 * R_sun = 174E6 meters 2.21E25 m^3

Using a plot of the solar interior temperature vs radius, the core varies from around 15 million at the center to around 800,000 K at 0.25 R_sun. Guessing at the average temperature for the volume, I picked a value of 10 million K, which is the value at just under 0.2 R_sun. Because the volume of a sphere is proportional to the cube of the radius, about half the volume of the core lies outside of this radius and the other half lies within this radius, making it a good proxy for the average temperature of the matter within the core.

From these values, then, we can find the number of photons needed to fill the core of the sun with “empty space”. Each photon is a tiny vortex that created a volume of space when (and where) it was formed, pushing the rest of the universe away in the process, much like a rocket taking off of the launch pad pushes earth’s atmosphere away from the

ogical variable

launch pad. So by dividing the volume of the core of the sun by the volume of a photon, we can find the number of photons the sun needs to produce in order to fill up the core with “space�.

The number of photons needed is thus, (using the above values) N_photons = V_core_sun / V_photon = 1.73E54 photons.

Using the energy of an average photon and the luminosity of the sun, we can now find how long it takes the sun to produce this volume of photons.

Time = 1.73E54 photons needed * 6.85E-16 J per photon / 3.84E26 Joules per second Time = 3.09E12 seconds = 97,800 years ~ 100,000 years Interestingly, this is about the time scale for major ice ages on planet earth. The above calculation is fairly sensitive to the exact values selected for the core temperature and radius, and these values cannot be observed directly. They are deduced from physical principles and no doubt have uncertainties large enough to throw this calculation significantly off from one hundred thousand years, above or below the value, depending on which values we use for the solar core properties.

That said, at the outset we had no expectation for what the result might be. And the result could have been two hours, or a billion years, or any other wild value. Instead, the result we find is close to a value known in earth geophysics of ice ages to match a property of earth weather patterns. So who knows, perhaps there is something to this calculation and it relates to a periodicity in the flow of heat from the sun as the core goes up and down in power output over long period variations that are not observable within our short lifetimes.

Calculations

179

cosmolo

Time Required to Inflate the Solar Radiative Zone Let’s now repeat the previous calculation using the solar radiative zone. This region within the solar interior reaches from the core boundary at about 0.25R_sun to about 0.7R_sun. Within this region the temperature drops significantly so that selecting an “average” temperature is difficult.

180

To perform this calculation properly one should integrate the values, but this is just beyond my skill set so I’ll estimate the average properties and cross my fingers that I’m not way out in left field. Fortunately I learned how to approximate an integral graphically and will use the graph I obtained for solar interior temperatures vs radius that was on the Internet. We must keep in mind that the volume scales as the cube of the radius, so we need to select a radius that is at about the half volume position to pick off the temperature value for the calculations.

Graphically estimating the radius where half the volume of the radiative zone lies to greater radii, and half lies to smaller radii, then checking that value by running the calculation for the volume of a sphere, I find that the mid volume radius is at about 0.56R_sun.

Using the graph of solar interior temperatures I find the temperature at that radius to be about T = 3.3E6 Kelvin. So I’ll plug those values into the chart of values and solve for the time it takes to fill that volume up with photons generated within that volume at the average temperature of that volume.

To begin, let’s create a new list of properties for the radiative zone within the sun. I again use the calctool.org site to determine the peak in the black body spectrum, photon energy and so on.

T_average Lambda Energy Luminosity

= = = =

3.3E6 K (from graphical estimate) 0.878 nm (the photon wavelength) 2.62E-16 Joules per photon 3.84E26 Joules per second

ogical variable

N_photons = L / E = 1.47E42 photons per second V_photon = 3.54E-28 m^3 per photon Radius_sun = 696E6 meters Radius_radi = Radiation zone goes from ~R = 0.25 R_sun to ~R = 0.7 R_sun V_radi_zone = (4 * 3.14 / 3) * ((0.7 * 696E6)^3 - (0.25 * 696E6)^3) = 4.62E26 m^3 To find the number of photons needed to fill this region of the sun, we divide the volume of the radiative zone by the volume of an individual “average� photon. Doing this we get, N_photons needed = 4.62E26 m^3 / 3.54E-28 m^3 per photon = 1.31E54 photons Now, we can find the total energy associated with that number of photons and then find the time it would take the sun to produce them given the luminosity of the sun. This is the same calculation we just performed for the solar core above.

Time = 1.31E54 photons needed * 2.62E-16 J per photon / 3.84E26 Joules per second Time = 8.94E11 seconds = 28,300 years.

Calculations

181

cosmolo

The Time to Inflate the Convection Zone We can now repeat the process one more time and arrive at the exterior of the sun.

Again I’ll list the properties of the sun as before, replacing the values with those for the solar convection zone.

Half the volume of the convection zone, ranging from radius 0.7R_sun to 1.0R_sun lies from a radius of 0.88R_sun outward. The temperature from the graph I have at that radius is around 700,000 K. The table now transforms to:

182

T_average = 700,000 K (from graphical estimate) Lambda = 4.14 nm (the photon wavelength) Energy = 4.80E-17 Joules per photon Luminosity = 3.84E26 Joules per second N_photons = L / E = 8.0E42 photons per second V_photon = 3.71E-26 m^3 per photon Radius_sun = 696E6 meters Radius_radi = Radiation zone goes from ~R = 0.7 R_sun to ~R = 1.0 R_sun V_radi_zone = (4 * 3.14 / 3) * ((1.0 * 696E6)^3 - (0.7 * 696E6)^3) = 9.27E26 m^3 As before, we find the number of photons to fill this volume by dividing the physical volume by the volume per photon.

N = 9.27E26 m^3 / 3.71E-26 m^3 = 7.28E50 photons Also as before we find the time to produce this many photons, remembering that the photon emissions in this region produce longer wavelength lower energy photons.

Time = 7.28E50 photons needed * 4.80E-17 J per photon / 3.84E26 Joules per second Time = 3.5E6 seconds = 40 days

ogical variable

The previous two calculations may be examples where I’m pushing the model too far and am getting meaningless answers to ill posed questions. True, 40 days lands somewhat close to the solar rotation rate of 27 days, and true, there’s a 13.5 day periodicity to the solar wind, which divides nicely into the 40 days resulting in 3 times that period.

For the radiation zone, 28,300 years lands in the middle of the ~20,000 and ~40,000 year long ice age cycles. A rather small change in the values plugged into the formulae would allow me to get the numbers to match either of those values. The temperature change from inner to outer radius of each of these two last zones is so large that the photon properties change by large amounts so it isn’t obvious that there ought to be anything of interest in these results using approximations. Perhaps an integration of the technique might yield different values that better fit to some observations for solar system behavior.

Of these three calculations, the one with the best input parameters and most intriguing result is for the core of the sun. If there is any merit to these calculations then perhaps one day in the future someone sharper than I will shed some new light on the ideas. For now, though, in the interest of exposing other curious results, let’s move on.

Let’s now move on to applying these calculations to supernova explosions.

Calculations

183

cosmolo

Spacetime Curvature On the Hertsprung – Rusell Diagram In this section I’ll describe in more detail how I make the calculations for the flow of space out of stars with dramatically different properties.

1.0

0.24 - 0.51

8.33

3.41 - 10.55 4.3 - 7.32 - 30.1 0.31

184

2.24

2.5

6.13 5.34

1.23

0.85

6.62

1.25

10 - 14.26 1.00

4.2

1.25

Neutron Star 4.0E - 26

2.16

1 1.1 1.29

0.1 0.17

0.13

1.2

ogical variable

In this plot of the HR diagram we can see the various properties of a large number of stars plotted as Luminosity vs Temperature. The stars range from tiny white dwarfs to enormous red and blue giants, with the main sequence stars like the sun along the diagonal line in the middle of the HR diagram. By looking at the various numbers in the boxes it’s easy to see a pattern where the numbers are small to the lower left, they are close to 1.0 along the main sequence diagonal, and they grow to larger values toward the upper right for giant and hyper giant stars.

The numbers plotted are the ratios of the average velocity of the flow of “space” out of the star to the surface escape velocity of the star. The surface escape velocity is just computed using Newtonian equations so you can go to Wikipedia to see how the escape velocity is computed. Plug in the values for the star in question and you have the denominator of this ratio.

The numerator is found by determining the average flow velocity of space out of the star.

Each photon carries an amount of aether with it that is proportional to the energy of the photon. But lower energy photons are larger, and so there is a larger region of space that is moving outward at the speed of light in the inner core region of the photon “smoke ring like” vortex. I use a value of 6 percent of the total volume of the photon as the moving percentage of space associated with a given photon.

For each star that has values, I looked up the properties of the star. I used the mass and radius to determine the Newtonian escape velocity. For the flow of space, I use the radius of the star to get the area out through which the flow of space must pass. I use the temperature of the star to get the value for photons at the peak of the black body radiation curve. This is a simple equation I plugged into my spreadsheet, but you can also go to Calctool.org and use their blackbody photon wavelength calculator.

Once you have the photon wavelength you can get the energy of the photon at the same site using a different calculator. Or you can use the equation, and again, Wikipedia has the equations needed.

Calculations

185

cosmolo

From the Luminosity you can then divide the total power output of the star by the energy per average blackbody photon to get the number of “average” photons emitted per second.

I think compute the volume of a spherical shell with a thickness equal to the distance light travels in one nanosecond. I also determine the total number of photons emitted in that one nanosecond.

186

We can then compute the volume per photon and multiply by the number of photons emitted in 1ns to get the total emitted volume of space in that time and within that volume. In other words, there is a volume of photons and a total volume for the space within which the photons were emitted. I multiply the photon total volume by 6 percent to get the percentage I think is actually moving at the speed of light in the photon vortex.

With that, I have some volume of space that is moving at the speed of light, and another volume of space that is stationary. So I multiply the moving volume by the speed of light, and the stationary volume by 0 m/s (which is of course equal to zero). Then I add the two and divide by the total volume.

This gives me an average velocity for the flow of space out of the star near the photosphere of the star. This is the value in the boxes in the diagram.

I think what the numbers give us is a “tendency” for matter to be blown away from the star. If this value is below the surface escape velocity, as it is for white dwarf stars, we get a value less than one. If it is above the surface escape velocity, as it is for giant stars, we get a value that is greater than one. And if it is close to one, as it is for main sequence stars, then the value is close to one as it is for the sun and most of the stars along the main sequence diagonal.

What “1.0” potentially means, is that the material near the surface of the star is just floating in a neutral gravity field where the outward cosmological variable component is just balancing the inward mass related gravity.

But this effect is not the only effect that can eject matter. So it isn’t a simple task to get

ogical variable

from here to stellar wind mass loss rates. But it may be possible. To do that, we would need to include a value for the opacity of the star. In other words, what is the column depth for material that will experience the cosmological variable effect? Does a large amount of material experience the effect, or does just a shallow depth of material experience the effect? Finding opacity figures has proven difficult so I haven’t yet managed to get good numbers to test this idea.

Also, for hot blue stars, the photons emitted have enough energy to ionize the particles in the stellar wind. If the particles are neutral atoms, then a first electron could be ejected.

If they are ions already, then the photons could eject another electron raising the ionization state. These interactions transfer momentum and energy to the wind particles, with a net outward thrust being imposed.

So for the hot blue stars, where the value determined for the cosmological variable drops below one, it may be that the new effect imposed by photon flux is what’s important.

Another curious thing we could explore here is the way these ideas interact with objects like galaxies. And further, I’ve only been computing the outward effect of photons and not the inward spacetime curvature that ought to exist due to the cosmic background radiation hitting the stars surface. As this is likely important in working on galaxies to solve the Dark Matter riddle, let’s focus a little attention on this subject.

An interesting thing is that from the perspective of a vantage point just outside the solar or any stellar photosphere, looking in one direction we see the hot star and looking in the opposite direction we see the cold dark surrounding universe. Close in to the star, just into the photosphere, those two different “surfaces” are essentially planar. In other words, we would see the same thing if we placed a cold 2.7 degree Kelvin surface that just surrounded the star. This is because the entire universe looks as though it is a cold 2.7 K surface and as far as radiation behavior is concerned, it doesn’t matter whether the cold “surface” is right next to the star, or all the way across the universe.

What this means is that we can repeat the calculation for the flow of space across the

Calculations

187

cosmolo

surface of the photosphere, but this time using the 2.7 K temperature for the photon flux.

We can do this by knowing that the number of photons emitted per second from a black body scales as the 4th power of the temperature. Computing (2.7 K / 5780 K)^4 yields a new value for the flow of photons, 4.76E-14. In other words, the sun is emitting 476 trillion times as many photons as are hitting it from the cosmic background radiation coming from deep space. The energy carried by the solar photons as well as the total quantity of aether is even larger as the solar photons are not only more numerous, but they are also of much higher energy.

188

But, the cosmic background photons are much larger. And in that we find a surprising result. It turns out that when we crunch the numbers, the flow velocity of space heading into the sun is equal to the flow velocity of space heading out of the sun.

At first blush it seems that this ought to negate the entire premise around which I’ve been running these calculations. But I think that statistically speaking, since the numbers of photons heading away from the sun are so vastly larger than the number heading into the sun, that there will still be some particles that will experience a net outward acceleration and thus contribute to the solar wind. Likewise, there ought to be some small number of particles that are accelerated into the sun by the cosmic background photons when they happen to “clump” in spacetime to a greater degree than the solar photons.

Another curious thing about this is that there is, on average, no net flow velocity for space outside of a main sequence star. Things are in balance. But there is a net flow of aether, and that over time will expand as the photons head across the universe and undergo red shifting due to photons emitted by galaxies everywhere.

In other words, if it isn’t clear, the emitted photons must drive the expansion of universe. They must be accelerating the rate of expansion of the universe because emission rate is close to uniform but the photons themselves are being stretched and growing in size as they cross the universe. This may then provide some insight into Dark Energy problem.

the the are the

ogical variable

But what’s even more curious is that if the flow of space from a surface turns out to be independent of it’s temperature….the flow is the same for all temperatures….then how could I possibly get different values for different star types? The only way I can think of is that the stars are not in equilibrium and that for stars with values other than ~1.0, something must be going on that’s unusual.

For white dwarfs with values around 0.1, perhaps what’s going on is that they are cooling down. They are after all, very compact, small, cinders of stars. For red giants with values up to around 10.0, perhaps what’s going on is that they are heating up and ejecting material. And for main sequence stars with values close to 1.0, perhaps they are the stars that are in equilibrium balance of the flow of space into and out through their surfaces.

Calculations

189

cosmolo

Volume of Photons Emitted During a Type Ia Supernova I’ve discussed this phenomena already in the text. But let’s perform the calculation, basically repeating the above computations, to determine the volume of photons that ought to be emitted during a Type Ia supernova. What’s interesting is that when we did these calculations for the sun, the time to form a sphere of newly emitted space the size of the core of the sun was in the range of 100,000 years. For a Type Ia supernova, the time scale is under one second.

190

Optical and X-ray Composite Image of SNR 0509-67.5

A Type Ia supernova is believed to occur (for many good reasons) when a white dwarf star in a binary system captures mass slowly from it’s companion star over many years.

White dwarfs form from old stars like our sun and larger than our sun when they cast off their outer shells of gas to form planetary nebulae.

ogical variable

In this image, the Rotten Egg Nebula displays the beginning of the process of ejecting the outer layers of the star.

We can’t yet see the white dwarf that will be left behind in this image as it is still buried deep within the overlying stellar material. But later on, after the process has moved forward and the nebula has expanded, we can then see into the interior of the nebula. There, a tiny white dwarf star is found.

This new star is the former core of the red giant.

So we might think of a white dwarf star as being the little star inside of giant stars that we see after the giant star throws away it’s thick overcoat of gas.

The Spirograph Nebula (IC 418)

191

Rotten Egg Nebula JPEG converted from NASA

In these images, we see the spirograph and helix nebulae. These nebulae are again formed from the outer layers of different red giant stars after they were cast off into space. Now that the overlying gases have expanded, we can finally see the white dwarf star at the center. The white dwarf begins as a hot ember with a temperature as high as 200,000 K, the core of

Helix Nebula As Seen By Hubble and the Cerro Toledo Inter-American Observatory

Calculations

cosmolo

the previous red giant star. Once the core ejects the outer layers of the red giant and becomes a white dwarf star, it no longer generates (significant) heat from fusion reactions.

White dwarf stars in general start off hot, and then cool down.

They are comprised of degenerate matter, meaning that the thermal energy is no longer sufficient to keep the star inflated in a manner such as the sun is inflated. For this reason they become crushed into a tiny volume just a little bit larger than the earth, and some more massive than the sun are actually smaller than the earth. In a strange to understand way, the more massive a white dwarf is, the smaller it gets.

192

In our realm, if something weighs twice as much, it will be twice as large if it’s made of the same material. But for degenerate matter such as exists in white dwarfs, adding more mass to the star just crushes the entire ball into a smaller volume. One might imagine we could therefore continue to crush it until it gets down to the size of a pea by adding more matter over a long period of time. But there’s a limit to how much mass we can add before something new takes place. That limit is 1.4 solar masses above which the star would collapse and form a black hole. Chandrasekhar is the Indian scientists who first derived this mass limit that we encounter time and again in stellar physics.

The first important thing to take home from this birthing process is that prior to casting off it’s outer layers, the red giant star had a larger mass than does the newly formed white dwarf. That means that the red giant was more able to drive fusion in the heavier elements contained in the core than is the new white dwarf. After all, the energy that cast off the outer layers came from the fusion reactions the star was driving prior to the ejection of its outer layers.

Once that mass is ejected, the total mass of the star has been dramatically reduced and the core can no longer drive fusion. This is important to note because we’re going to wonder about why in the future, it does ignite to produce a supernova explosion, so keeping track of its initial properties will help us understand its future explosive behavior.

Because the matter in the star is “degenerate” (see Wikipedia for discussion) it is highly

ogical variable

thermally conductive. From what I’ve been able to deduce, the temperature inside a (degenerate) white dwarf is nearly constant from the core to close to the exterior surface.

This is because the central degenerate matter acts like a short circuit to heat conduction to the surface. There, the resistance to heat flow is larger and the temperature drops rapidly across a relatively short radial distance to the exterior of the star. We then see this exterior with our telescopes.

The star is no longer driving fusion in it’s core and so it is rapidly cooling off from its initial hot temperature. This is important because the star is made of about equal proportions of carbon and oxygen. Carbon burns at a lower temperature than oxygen. Carbon burns at around 800 million Kelvin. This is hotter than the interior of the white dwarf when it’s first formed, and so it’s also certainly hotter than its interior temperature at any later date. Basically, if the star could have burned carbon prior to formation, it would have. And if it couldn’t then, it certainly won’t be able to later on after cooling.

A large number of stars exist in binary pairs, and white dwarfs are no exception. The more massive star of the pair will always be the first to cast off it’s outer layers and become a white dwarf. Then, some long time later, the second star of the system will transition into the red giant phase and cast of its outer layers. When this happens, the cast off material can fall onto the white dwarf and begin to increase its mass.

As the mass of the white dwarf grows, it becomes increasingly compressed, and smaller.

Yes, smaller. All the while the white dwarf is radiating away thermal energy, though there can be some fusion of the newly acquired hydrogen on the surface. The core of the star becomes increasingly dense, supported by degeneracy pressure of the electrons. But as the mass approaches the Chandrasekhar limit, the nuclei become crushed into one another. The density is greatest at the center of the star.

The obvious and logical next thing one might expect to happen is for the carbon and oxygen nuclei to begin to fuse. And once fusion is initiated at any significant level, the heat will be deposited and drive even more fusion reactions. Because the star is now supported by degeneracy pressure and not thermal pressure, as the core heats up, it doesn’t

Calculations

193

cosmolo

expand. So the reaction rate should rapidly rise and produce a runaway explosion.

This idea seems reasonable. Take the ash of an old star, a carbon and oxygen white dwarf at around 0.6 solar masses, a typical stellar cinder. Place it in a binary system with a slightly younger partner. Wait a while for the younger partner to enter its giant stage, as it will when the time is right. Watch as the ejected gas of the newly formed giant rains down onto the now cooler white dwarf over some millions of years time scale. Watch as the white dwarf grows in mass, undergoes nova surface explosions or surface fusion of hydrogen into helium and then carbon and oxygen.

194

And then, as the white dwarf approaches the 1.4 solar mass weight limit, the central core is fully degenerate and finally, the nuclei there are crushed into one another so that the core could be freezing cold and the nuclei would still fuse because to not do so would lead to their being crushed further and becoming a black hole. So they will fuse, like it or not.

When they do, the nuclei in the core will heat up, but the core will not expand. So the reaction rate will, well, explode. So there’s the obvious model. It seems reasonable, even unavoidable. And yet, this model fails to predict what we observe in the sky.

If this were the explosion mechanism, a detonation, then the shock driven fusion reactions would consume the entire contents of the star in a small fraction of a second, completely burning everything to iron like elements. But when we look at the elements produced in Type Ia supernova explosions, we find that around 40 percent of the mass of the supernova remnant is made up of intermediate ions. The contents of the star are not fully converted to iron. So it is not possible that the shock wave ran out through the entire contents of the star.

That leaves us with two choices. Either we try to find a way that the shock wave could loose intensity after partially burning up the star, or, we find a different way to burn the stellar contents. Virtually everyone in the field is working on the latter. I’m studying the former.

ogical variable

The field is full of models such as deflagration (flame) to detonation (shock) burning where the burning starts off as a flame and only partially burns the matter of the star.

Then, (for some reason, and at some rather particular time), the burning transitions into a detonation wave. Then, because the geometry of the above mechanism is a bit of a mess, the shock wave must clean things up. One clever scenario proposes that a flame bubble rises up to the surface, breaks out, races around the outside of the star, collides into itself and then from the exterior of the star, initiates a detonation that runs through the material of the star.

For all the really good work that’s been done, to me they all seem complicated and ad hoc.

The simple and clean mechanism is simply that the white dwarf has new matter piled on top of it until the center gets crushed to such a degree that in spite of being cold, the nuclei fuse. Once that happens, the mater around the newly formed hot spot gains enough kinetic energy to drive fusion in the adjacent material. And from there, the detonation races through the entire star.

But to shut the detonation wave down prior to burning all of the material to iron like elements, I’m studying the idea that the fusion reactions emit space, and that the emission of space within the exploding star leads to an inflation (Big Bang like inflation) of the star so that when we get to 60 percent of the material having been burned, the remaining material is being expanded by the emitted space so that the matter density is dropping and the shock front drops to sub sonic, a flame, and more slowly proceeds through the remainder of the star.

In that way, the explosion would begin in the center of the star due to the intense compression of the matter. It would begin with a “low” temperature (by fusion norms) but extreme density. And it would run away until the amount of space emitted had inflated the star enough to transform the shock burning into sub sonic flame burning.

Let’s now shift our attention from the mechanism that sets off the explosion to the observable results and aftermath. We’ll run the calculations we’ve run on stars, but this time

Calculations

195

cosmolo

run them on a rapid explosion, just to see what falls out.

To get started we need to find a few pieces of information from the literature. Mainly I use the Google search engine to find numbers, many coming from Wikipedia as well as papers on Archive X and the Net in general. Researchers tend to have their own web page giving some details about their research and some insight into their thoughts on whatever particular area of research they are involved with.

196

Type Ia supernovae are the one’s used to determine the rate at which the universe is expanding. And given the discovery that the universe is not slowing down as was anticipated, and that it is accelerating, the measurements made using these supernova explosions are what led to the idea “Dark Energy”. As a result, there are a plethora of papers on these supernova that work to glean every bit of information possible from them.

What we need to do is to find the pieces of information we need to run the calculations.

For these supernovae, we need to get some values for energy released, time over which the energy is released, initial size of the white dwarf, temperature of the energy release process, and so on.

During the explosion, a Type Ia supernova releases around 1E44 to 2E44 Joules of energy.

I’ll use a value in between, 1.5E44 Joules. The explosion time scale is something around or less than one second depending on the model one chooses. And the temperature of the plasma formed is in the range of about 1 billion Kelvin.

Three interesting papers on the subject of type Ia supernovae at: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/lectures/ADSEM/SS05_Iapichino.pdf http://crd.lbl.gov/assets/pubs_presos/MCS/CCSE/wka.pdf and, http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/730/2/87/fulltext/ On page 7 of the first paper they mention that the carbon burning rate scales as tempera-

ogical variable

ture to the 12th power in the range of 10 billion K. This seems like too high a value to me. Twelfth power scaling with temperature seems like it would explode if you dropped a pin, so I’d think it would explode before it ever reached this value. In the second paper, Woosley et al., they mention values around 3.5 billion K for flame models. For this computation I’ll make a guess that detonation and the burning of the detonation flame is driven at around 3 billion K. This is just a first guess to see what happens and whether the numbers we get from this make sense.

We can now calculate the volume of photons emitted by the supernova explosion. We have a total energy release of about 1.5E44 Joules of energy from various papers on the subject. And we now have a guess as to the temperature associated with the fusion burning at 3E9 K. From this we can get the photon wavelength and energy, and compute the volume of photons produced during the explosion as a first step toward considering how the process might change if this model is correct.

Energy released = 1.5E44 Joules Shock Temperature= 3E9 K Lambda = 0.000966 nm Energy_photon = 2.056E-13 Joules per photon N_photons = 1.5E44 J / 2.056E-13 J = 7.30E56 photons V_photon = 3.77E-36 m^3 Total V_photons = N_photons * V_photons = 2.75 E21 m^3 Now that we have the total volume of photons emitted, we can compute the radius of a sphere that has that volume. This is just the equation for spherical volume, solved for radius since we already have the volume and need the radius. Doing so we get: R = 8,680 km.

Next we need to make a guess as to how long it would take to explode the star using a detonation. I haven’t found a paper yet that goes into details about the detonation model.

Basically, all the papers I read begin with something like, detonations are ruled out be-

Calculations

197

cosmolo

cause we observe elements that didn’t burn all the way to iron, and a detonation would have completely burnt them, so, we’ll study explosion model XYZ instead of a detonation model.

That said, I vaguely recall having read a paper that modeled a detonation. If I remember correctly, at some point in the explosion they ad hoc turned off the shock, or decreased the material density, or something that halted the burning, and they managed to get some interesting results. I’d like to read that paper again and see if they would run some new calculations.

198

Anyway, one number I was able to find was that the detonation shock velocity might be on the order of 5,000 km/s, and by combining this with the radius of the white dwarf just before the Chandrasekhar mass limit, ~1,000 km, we can make a guess that it would take around 0.2 seconds for a detonation shock to cross the entire star and burn everything.

If we emit an 8,700 km radius bubble of newly emitted space in 0.2 seconds then the bubble was advancing at a radial velocity of 8,700 km / 0.2 second = 43,500 km/s. Basically, whatever material was carried along with the leading edge of the growing new bubble of space might be moving at or close to that velocity. It turns out that the first matter coming off of the star is moving at something like 25,000 to possibly 35,000 km/s.

And, it turns out that the matter furthest out is moving outward fastest, and the matter at the center is sitting there, and the matter in between is moving outward with velocities a bit like an accordion would have where the further out the matter is, the faster it is moving. The leading edge material is moving the fastest, and is made of carbon, oxygen, and some partially burned fusion products.

In other words, the matter in the center of the star burns all the way to iron group elements. Matter further out, about 40 percent of the total, is burned to intermediate elements. And the matter that would have originally been at the outermost parts of the star didn’t burn at all and is still carbon and oxygen with some partially burned material mixed in. The symmetry of the observations makes the detonation model compelling if

ogical variable

there’s a way to shut down the detonation shock after it’s burned up around 60 percent of the mass of the star.

So let’s explore that idea. After burning up around 60 percent of the mass of the star, how big will the bubble of newly emitted space be? There are a number of ways this might go, so I need to pick one and we can explore it. I’ll guess that by the time 60 percent of the mass has been converted to iron group elements, the total energy released and thus volume of the bubble of space produced is also close to 60 percent. The partially burnt elements haven’t yet been hit by the shock at this time. What is the volume of the remaining material, and what is the volume of the bubble already formed?

The bubble ought to have a volume around 60 percent of the volume of the 8680 km radius bubble. This will be the case when the growing bubble has a radius around 85 percent of the final radius, or, around ~7380 km for the forming bubble, and, ~850km radius within the original star.

In other words, we began with a star with around 1,000 km radius. The shock has now driven outward to the matter that was initially at around 850 km from the center. But now, because of the emission of space by the fusion reactions, the radius of the shock is actually around 7380 km and the remainder of the unburnt carbon oxygen fuel is now spread in a thin spherical shell around the growing spacetime bubble.

Or at least that’s one way things might play out. Another way is that the emitted space is expanding all of the matter of the star simultaneously so that the more fusion energy is released, the greater the expansion of the entire star.

We can consider two different things from the above two possible paths for the process to take. First, we can consider the thickness of the remaining material spread around the exterior of the growing bubble. Second, we can consider the change in density imposed by the fusion reactions to the star as a whole. And there are certainly a large number of other possible ways this might play out yet to be discovered. I’ll look at these two and see what falls out.

Calculations

199

cosmolo

First, the remaining volume of material that hasn’t yet burned, still at the original pre detonation density of the white dwarf, is the carbon and oxygen matter that existed initially at radii from 850 km to 1,000 km, the outer radius of the white dwarf just before detonation. So I can compute the volume of that spherical shell. After burning that much material, we have now created a new spherical volume of space with radius around 7,380km.

200

For this first check, I computed the thickness that a spherical shell of the original stellar material would have if spread around over this new larger bubble of space. The answer turned out to be around 2,440 meters thick. The situation is then that we have a bubble of space and burnt material with radius 7380km. There remains a 2.44km thin shell of unburnt material on the outside of the burnt material. And after that 2.4km of material burns, the final space bubble formed will be 8680km.

But I don’t think this can be how things work. The distance across a shock front is tiny.

It is certainly nothing like 2.4km. And the opacity of the remaining 2.4km of material is far too high for the photonic energy release and ensuing spacetime curvature from photonic motions we studied earlier. In short, I don’t see anyway that the un-burnt material could remain at the initial conditions as a thin shell over the surface of the newly formed spacetime bubble. If the thin shell was just a couple atoms thick, then perhaps that might have been the case. But at 2.4km, that’s just far too large.

So it must be that the newly emitted space is flowing outward through all the matter of the star. Adopting this for further exploration, what can we learn?

First of all, a detonation wave would initial near the center of the star where the density and temperature are highest. Once initiated it would race radially outward, burning everything in it’s path all the way to iron group elements. But notice something interesting, the further out the shock front goes, the larger the area of the shock front and thus the faster the rate of burning. If the newly formed space is just deposited where it’s created, then the shock makes new space where it reacts more matter, they are in balance. But if the space flows out through the matter of the star as it’s produced, then the future out

ogical variable

the shock front goes, the faster the rate of new space production.

That in turn means that as the shock moves outward, the outward flow of space must be increasing, and thus the density of the remaining fuel might be going down as more space is flowing outward through it. The shock could then run out through the remainder of the material, but the material would keep getting less and less dense and some of the outermost material could be blown away as un-burnt carbon and oxygen.

From this it seems that the flow of space isn’t solely tied to the flow of photons. Photon emission comes with the emission of new space, but the expansion of the universe is felt by material beyond the current location of the emitted photons.

Another aspect of these explosions that may prove interesting for future study is that the curvature of the shock front is changing as it moves out through the material of the star.

It begins with a large curvature (small radius of curvature due to the small initial size of the burning region). As the shock expands through the material of the star, the diameter of the burning shock is increasing and becoming closer to flat, a plane. As that happens, the intensity of any forward effect of the space emission ought to grow. And it appears from this simplistic analysis that this may be what is happening. As the shock grows, the space emission effect also grows and the matter remaining becomes thinned out so as to shut down the burning.

To recap what these explosions may be telling us, we first notice that the explosion of an entire star worth of material creates a large volume of spacetime in spite of the temperature of the space formation being large and the photons therefore small. Next, the guesses at velocity for ejecta are in the correct ballpark. It appears from the last two possible ways things might proceed, that the more likely is that the emitted space has an effect on matter ahead of the shock. In other words, the motion of emitted space, or its effect, moves faster than the shock at 5,000 km/s so that the material at larger diameters is thinned out prior to the arrival of the shock.

And if that last guess is correct, then viewed from the outside, on earth, there may be

Calculations

201

cosmolo

some new observable behavior of the light emitted from the explosion. If space is flowing out of the explosion ahead of the shock, then from our point of view it would appear that all of a sudden the white dwarf star started to race away from us. It’s light would, for a short time, be red shifted. And when the fusion reactions all of a sudden ceased, there ought to be a blue shift imposed on the observable light of the explosion.

202

There are curious blue shifted features in the early light emissions. But the time scale of the emissions I’m alluding to here are probably too short to be observable. They probably last for one or a few seconds, far too short to detect in observations we make. There is, though, the possibility that reflections of the shifted light might be observable over a longer period of time. So there’s a small chance that something more might be gleaned from these explosions in the spectroscopy of the light signatures at the earliest instants of the explosions.

ogical variable

203

cosmolo

Volume of Photons Absorbed / Emitted During Type II Supernovae Up to this point all of the phenomena we have considered have been exothermic. Stars driving fusion are releasing energy and thus transforming mass into space. The same goes for the Type Ia supernovae, they are transforming mass into space via fusion reactions. In Type II supernovae, the situation is different and this will give us our first inkling as to why Black Holes ought to exist and what they are.

204

A Type II supernova is one produced by very massive stars. You can read more detail about the process at Wikipedia. Basically, a very massive star, several times more massive than the sun, will drive a series of fusion reactions beginning at birth with hydrogen fusion. Hydrogen fusion produces helium, and after a while the hydrogen in the core begins to run out, the star then crushes the helium which heats it to higher temperatures and before long helium fusion ignites.

This process continues through the elements until iron is being produced in the core.

The internal structure is then like an onion, with a core of iron and surrounding shells of lighter elements as you move radially outward, each core growing in mass as fusion in the different regions continues. But there is a limit to how much iron can be in the core before the core will be crushed by gravity because the fusion of iron is endothermic (absorbs energy) and can no longer support the overlying mass of the star.

When a massive stars core reaches the same 1.4 solar mass value as in Type Ia supernovae, the core will be crushed. It would collapse to form a black hole except that just as it reaches this limit, another process, the disintegration of the iron nuclei takes place and the protons grab the surrounding electrons to form neutrons. Neutrons can support the mass of the core via nuclear degeneracy pressure which is greater than electron degeneracy pressure. The process of transforming the iron nuclei into neutrons is extremely fast. Once it begins, and the entire core collapses violently within less than a second, all of the iron nuclei being transformed into neutrons.

That process absorbs, rather than emits, energy. And the amount of energy absorbed is

ogical variable

enormous in comparison to the energy released over the life of the star to build the iron core. In an instant, a huge amount of energy is removed from the center of the star as the neutrons are formed. But this, in light of the current model, means that an enormous volume of aether must flow into the forming neutrons.

And that aether must come from the space and photons surrounding and within the iron core itself. In other words, the process could soak up all the available photons, and or space, within the vicinity of the nuclei undergoing the endothermic reactions to form neutrons.

So, ignoring the flow of space itself, we can make an estimate of the volume of photons needed to drive the process by estimating the amount of energy, as well as the temperature at which the process takes place. This is basically an accounting of the total flow of aether into the forming neutrons, the reverse of what we’ve been doing for exothermic reactions in stars.

To do the accounting we need to again make some guesses as to the conditions within the core at the time of collapse.

From Wikipedia, the density in the core as iron is formed is around 1.0E8 g/cc. The mass of the core is close to 1.4 M_sun. So crunching the numbers that translates into a core that has a volume around 1.99E19 m^3, which means a radius around, R = 1,680 km.

Next we need a temperature for the matter in the core. From Wikipedia the peak temperature in the core reaches something on order of 100E9 Kelvin. So let’s use this value to compute the volume of photons needed to supply the process with enough energy to convert the iron nuclei into neutrons. We can make a guess at the volume of photons needed using the following table of data.

E_supernova ~ 1.0E46 Joules T_core ~100.0E9 K Lambda_photons = 0.029 pm

205

cosmolo

E_photons = R_core = V_core = V_photon = N_photons = V_needed photons =

=

206

6.85E-12 Joules per photon 1.680E6 meters 1.99E19 m^3 (4*pi/3) * (0.029E-12 / 2)^3 = 1.277E-41 m^3 E_supernova / E_photon = 1.46E57 photons needed (4*pi/3) * (0.029E-12 / 2)^3 * 1.46E57 1.86E16 m^3

So to supply the iron nuclei to neutron conversion process with aether, assuming it comes from photons, we would need a volume that’s about one thousandth the volume of the core itself. Given that within the core the space is not 100 percent filled with photons (a guess) this value might be close to consuming all of the photons within the core. But what’s more is that this volume of space within the core is going to disappear from the photon form and be transformed into the nuclear form inside the neutrons that will soak up the extra aether.

In other words, we just initiated an inward collapse to the space within and around the entire star. That inward flow of space will drive the overlying material of the star to implode with more violence than would be expected if it were to just fall inward without the disappearance of space occupied by the photons.

And if it still isn’t clear, this process is a first step in the formation of a black hole, an object into which space, photons, and matter flow. The formation of neutrons is endothermic, and so space, or aether, must literally flow into the forming neutron core.

The above treatment is not likely very accurate. But it helps convey the idea that an endothermic implosion could drive the formation of a black hole by consuming and condensing the medium making up space.

As the overlying material falls inward and is accelerated inward by the inward flow of space to replace what has been removed, the convergence ought to heat the inward going material even before it reaches the neutron core. Convergence in sonoluminescence

ogical variable

bubbles does this so I can’t imagine that an imploding star could avoid it. But with the star, what that means is that the next layer of fusion reactions in the core material could be ignited prior to the arrival of the material at the neutron core. Some photons from the fusion reactions might be driven into the forming core, and others would drive the supernova explosion we observe.

There are a lot of details and a lot of kinds of Type II supernovae that I’m not addressing. The single point I want to put across is the nature of these explosions are such that during one part of the process, they consume aether and thus, space. And that leads to a natural way to understand what a black hole actually is. It is an object into which space is flowing and anything in that space is flowing inward along with the space itself. Many scientists have likened a black hole to a vortex in a bathtub. And they have likened the flow of photons and material into the vortex by using a larger version of the vortex along with photons likened to a person paddling a kayak trying to keep from flowing into the vortex hole.

My vision for a black hole is very much like that one. It is a place in our ocean universe into which the medium filling space, and all resonances and waves within that ocean, are flowing. The flow exceeds the velocity of light at the event horizon. And it might actually have vortices like tornados at the poles if there is enough angular momentum within the host galaxy around the black hole. But this is a spherical hole so that the medium of the ocean is flowing into the hole from all directions.

At the center of the black hole, in order for this process to manifest and persist, there must be a core of aether condensate. We could call this a core of condensed space, meaning, the stuff of space we know, condensed into a more dense form. I tend to think of this as being like liquid water in the core compared to vapor water molecules in the universe ocean.

If I could place a zero degree Kelvin sphere somewhere in an atmosphere of water vapor, any vapor molecules that hit the core sphere would stick and be removed from the vapor ocean. Quickly, the entire ocean would begin flowing into the core. But the convergence

207

cosmolo

would develop into a back pressure and limit the inward flow. So the flow would reach a balance with the ocean properties and not tend to infinity. Same ought to be true for a black hole. The flow into the black hole ought to have something to do with the way it formed, and something to do with the environment it was formed within.

208

But most important is that without any forces of attraction in this universe, the core is NOT stable. If given a chance, it will explode. In the next section I’ll discuss ways the core could explode and show you examples of galaxies that likely host black holes ejecting their contents. In other words, Hawking radiation is trivially insignificant compared to what a black hole could do if it could breach confinement as I think many have. Active galaxies, the Big Bang, and electrons are examples of three types of black holes that have (I think) breached confinement.

You see, if the aether model in any form is correct, then it seems to me that Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 means that what we call mass becomes transformed between the condition of condensate trapped in acoustic anti-nodes in what we call particles, to photons and ultimately to what we call empty space. Within this context, the vast universe is better thought of as an ocean of aether vapor, within which still remain tiny droplets that haven’t yet vaporized, that we call “particles”. Stars, planets, gas clouds, people and space craft are like clouds floating through the vast ocean, waiting for the right conditions to transform into vapor themselves.

In the next section I’ll discuss in more detail some new processes that may be at work in black holes, with a focus on supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies.

ogical variable

209

cosmolo

Black Hole Breach Sequence

210

In this sequence of images and pictures I’ll walk through the idea that a black hole is an object with a core confined inside. To begin let’s recall that in this universe there is no such thing as a force of attraction. So a black hole cannot be an object that reaches outward to pull things inward. Rather, something on the outside must provide the impetus for things to flow in. And to persist, a black hole according to this model must have a core into which the aether filling the universe can flow and condense into a much higher density form, a condensate.

If what we call empty space is flowing into a black hole, then it’s actually easy to comprehend the existence of a black hole. Space flows in and condenses, and anything that gets too close to where the flow velocity reaches the speed of light is going to flow in along with the space. This is just the kayak paddler trying to paddle upstream as he falls over a waterfall. Once the water velocity exceeds his ability to paddle, he’s going over the falls and will hit the bottom with the water.

The “bottom” for a black hole is the core of aether condensate, where the vapor aether is crushed at enormous pressure into it’s condensate form. Because all photons, matter, and everything within our universe are made up of waves or vortices of one shape or another, in and made up of, the very same aether, they will be crushed into condensate along with space itself. The core, at unimaginable pressure and temperature, is kept confined by the continuous inward flow. The ram pressure keeps the core confined inside the event horizon.

But that idea isn’t stable. It can’t persist forever. And there are a number of ways that the core might breach confinement. In this first sequence of paintings and images I’ll describe one (a first) mechanism for the core to breach confinement.

It’s possible that a black hole could have aether flowing into it along radial lines. There might not be any rotation associated with the inward flowing aether. But this would be

ogical variable

the odd ball, and in any real situation there will be some degree of rotation for the inward flowing space. As rotation begins, an axis of rotation will form. But as with tornados, there could be localized rotation and vortices that could be imagined to persist. For now I’ll focus on the bulk rotation induced by the rotation of the stars in the galaxy surrounding the supermassive black hole.

In this case, the rotation takes the form of a pair of vortices at the two poles of the spherical “hole� into which the aether is flowing and condensing. As the angular momentum of the galaxy increases, so too ought the angular momentum of aether flowing into the black hole at the galaxy center. This in turn will lead to the vortices at the poles becoming more intense and penetrating deeper into the interior of the hole.

Over time, as angular momentum is communicated from the stars orbiting a newly merged galaxy pair, the rotation near the black hole ought to increase. The vortices at the poles of the hole also ought to strengthen and penetrate deeper into the interior of the hole. All the while, the core is increasing in aether content. It is growing in size. Sooner or later, the ram pressure at the poles of the core ought to wane and the core ought to elongate along the axis.

If the ram pressure at the tips of the core is less than the internal pressure of the core, the core will breach confinement and shoot its aether condensate back out into our universe, the aether boiling as it expands. This ought to drive enormously intense jets out into our universe and we ought to be able to see them. They should be observed preferentially in galaxies with excess rotation.

Also, because we have the idea that aether is flowing out of stars, and also that aether is flowing into black holes, there must be a radius within any galaxy where the aether flow transitions from flowing into the black hole, to flowing out of the galaxy. We can reasonably expect to observe some unusual phenomena at that radius. Indeed we do observe large donut clouds of gas at radii well away from the central black holes, but deep in the interior of the host galaxies.

211

cosmolo

In the first image of the series, the flow into the black hole is radial. There is an event horizon where the flow exceeds the speed of light and nothing could escape. But aside from that there isn’t much unusual. In the next image, the galaxy takes on a bit of rotation and we begin to see the formation of vortices within space around the black hole.

These are not representations of “gas” vortices. They are representing the rotation of space itself, or the way spacetime becomes twisted, at the poles.

212

As the rotation intensity increases, the vortices penetrate deeper into the interior and the ram pressure at the poles decreases so that the core elongates along the axial direction.

If the rotation gets too large, and the vortices ram pressure isn’t enough to maintain confinement of the core, it will breach and explosively boil. This ought to emit a supersonic jet of boiling vapor aether. But “supersonic” for aether means “superluminal” or faster than light, to us.

Many black hole jets are observed to eject light emitting stuff that expands with velocities many times the speed of light. There are ways to explain the observations based on the jets being pointed almost directly at us. But if this model is correct, then in the future we should observe incontrovertible proof that the faster than light observations stem from objects within the jet in fact moving at faster than light speed.

It is only reasonable that one jet will breach first. Once it does, however, the core will be thrust away from the jet just as a fireman is thrust away from the direction of the water flowing out of the fire hose. If he was on ice, he would accelerate away from the water flow direction. So the core of the black hole must be pushed by the emissions, away from the pole that breaches confinement first. That then leads to the second pole breaching confinement.

The closer the core is to a pole, the smaller the radial inflow convergence will be and so the smaller the inward ram pressure will be that tries to confine the jet. The jet on that side will be more intense, and thrust the core back toward the center of the black hole event horizon. The emissions ought to last for a long time as once the core breaches confinement it will need to run down in contents and intensity before the inward flowing

ogical variable

aether can pinch off the outward flow.

It’s conceivable that the entire core of condensate could be depleted prior to shutting down the jets. It’s also conceivable that after the core has been significantly depleted, the jets could pinch off. But another interesting thing is that if the jets eject stars from the host galaxy, they will be ejected along the axis of rotation. When they rain back down into the host galaxy, they will be falling down along more radial lines than they had prior to being ejected. In other words, the ejected stars could shut down the process by randomizing the organized rotation of the galaxy so as to shut down the vortices from the outside.

This may be what’s happening in Centaurus A. In Centaurus A we see a pair of radio jets coming from the central massive black hole. We also see that this unusual galaxy has a greater than normal rotation, as evidenced by it’s dusty disk. But if we inspect a “deep” image of Centaurus A to see the faint extensions of the galaxy, we see that there are long stellar steams that are roughly aligned with the radio jets and perpendicular to the rotation axis. As those stars rain back down into the galaxy, its organized net rotation will be randomized and it will become an elliptical galaxy.

It seems to me, therefore, that spiral galaxies evolve to being elliptical galaxies in stages when they black holes breach confinement and shoot stars upward along the axis of rotation. As they rain down, the rotation is reduced, the vortices will abate, and the black hole will again become quiet with primarily radial inward flow of the aether.

We see the process of shutting down in the images provided where at first, one of the jets will pinch off. When that happens, just as when the first jet formed, the core will be pushed away from the jet and toward the opposing side of the event horizon. The still emitting jet will then pinch off as the ram pressure gets larger, but the core will coast toward the event horizon until it breaches confinement again, igniting a new one sided jet. The jet then pushes the core back toward and past center, and this oscillation process can continue for a long time producing a series of observable clouds of emission in the surrounding space.

213

cosmolo

M81 is a prime example of the back and forth behavior. And from the observations it may be that having double lobes is evidence of recent breach of confinement for that galaxy. The opposite is having a long series of lobes of radio emissions on two sides of the galaxy that result from this back and forth process after the first of the two jets first is turned off.

214

One key point to take away from this section is the idea that a black hole cannot pull anything inward. Rather, things are blown into the hole by the flow of aether, and thus space that is driven by the external pressure of the aether ocean within the center of the galaxy. In other words, the “mass” inside the black hole has little to do with what has been blown into the hole. Notice that the entire contents of the core in the black hole could reasonably be ejected during the jetting phase, completely emptying the interior of “mass” as we know it.

The “mass” of a black hole, then, relates not to what’s inside, but rather, it relates to the stars outside of the hole that are blowing aether into the hole. The greater the pressure the stars develop outside, the greater the inward flow of aether will be. And this then means that the larger the mass of a galaxy is, the larger the mass of its central black hole will be. It also means that if two galaxies have the same mass, but one has a larger concentration of stars in the center (a larger stellar density profile as a function of radius out into the galaxy) then that galaxy will have a “larger mass” black hole.

But what we’re really measuring is not the mass of the black hole, as things blown into the hole are disconnected from communication with our outside universe. What we’re really measuring is the aether pressure produced by the stars surrounding the black hole. Those stars are emitting aether and that drives up the local pressure of the aether in comparison to the pressure out in inter-galactic space. The higher the pressure, the greater the inflow, and the higher we determine the mass of that black hole to be.

Two things that have been observed that seem to fit this idea. First, the mass of black holes do turn out to be proportional to their host galaxies. Second, galaxies with radio

ogical variable

jets, (active galaxies) do tend to have more angular momentum than do galaxies without radio jets. But of course the extra angular momentum is invoked in the normal models for black hole jet formation as the source of energy to drive the EM fields that are proposed to power the jets.

That said, think about the idea that “stuff that wanted to fall into the black hole instead gets shot outward”. Then, remember that we’ve now seen this same jet formation in newborn T-tauri stars, second ignition planetary nebula stars with their FLIERs, and now in active galaxies. In every case the ejected material shoots much further out into space than it fell from. The matter falling into the black hole is falling in from a few hundred light years, yet is ejected outward a million light years. Why wouldn’t it just be shot upward a few hundred or maybe a thousand light years, within the host galaxy, and then fall back inward.

The idea that these jets in active galaxies shoot material a million light years into space is about as reasonable as expecting a tornado on earth to fire air upward that hits the moon. It doesn’t happen. It slows and remains within our atmosphere.

Assuming that the jets can completely empty the core of the black hole, it’s easy to imagine a spherical vortex with two polar vortices where the flow of aether (space) is into the hole around the equatorial regions, and outward at the poles. This could produce a persistent structure. And because the aether flowing inward in this case would never condense, it would just be a process where space flows inward around the majority of the spherical region, and back outward through the poles. The opening angle ought to be larger than it would be with a supersonic jet driven by aether ablation from condensate to vapor.

We actually see different shapes for the black hole jets. In Centaurus A, the jets have a large opening angle and do not extend very far out into the surrounding space. They remain within the galaxy itself. In contrast, objects like Cygnus A or 3C273 display intense, narrow, highly collimated and million light year long jets that reach out to distances of neighboring galaxies. I think the difference between those two classes of jets is “core” or

215

cosmolo

“no core”. Which means, counter to our estimates of ~5E7 solar mass black hole, the black hole mass is really ~0. In other words, there’s nothing inside.

216

What we’re measuring is the way stars and other objects interact with flowing space. And we assign a value to the mass of the black hole that accounts for our observations. But the effect results from flow, not from stuff inside the hole reaching out to pull on stars on the outside. And if we were able to measure the “gravity” of Centaurus A’s black hole near it’s poles, I expect we’d find that it had negative gravity. In other words, the outward flowing space would produce an anti-gravitational effect there, much like the effect imposed by stellar photon emission considered earlier, but of course dramatically more intense.

I’m stretching pretty far in these comments, and am likely wrong about several. I put forward the comments not to assert I have things figured out, but rather, to convey a radical new way of thinking about the object that likely no one has considered. That way, in the future, these ideas can be explored and the one’s that are right can be adopted and the one’s that are found to have been incorrect can be discarded. But it’s not likely anyone is going to come up with the ideas without a lot of contemplation, so here they are for consideration.

ogical variable

217

cosmolo

Planetary Phenomena

218

The solar system is a system of objects, and one star. Based on the ideas in this book, the sun must be emitting space in one form or another. Technically, it must be emitting aether. And that aether can come out of the sun in the form of compact vortices called photons, neutrinos, and perhaps in the form of space itself. Spacetime, is a structure of standing waves within the ocean of aether. Photons and particles interact with spacetime.

More to the point, they are resonances that are being driven by, spacetime. So there is no way for them to exist without spacetime being present. They would go poof, like teeny white holes might be expected to behave.

It seems pretty clear to me that photons must be aether carriers. So that basically means that the sun is emitting aether in the form of photons. Those photons, wherever they happen to be, are curving the spacetime within which they are immersed. And that spacetime curvature effect interacts with everything else, including planets. It also seems clear that there are neutrinos coming out of the sun. Just like electrons, neutrinos must contain a quantity of aether in their core that is confined by the standing wave that is, the neutrino.

But what isn’t clear is whether some of the aether emitted in fusion reactions is transformed directly into spacetime. Alternately, it isn’t clear whether the transformation of photons from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun, where the numbers of photons goes up, and the energy per photon goes down, also leads to an expansion of spacetime.

It seems like it must, but I leave open the possibility that it doesn’t.

That is to say, spacetime, the acoustic structure of standing waves, may be precessing outward with time and that motion of the standing wave field would produce a spacetime curvature effect of sorts. The flow of photons must produce another sort of spacetime curvature effect as must the flux of neutrinos. It’s probably a combination of these effects and most likely, there is a precession of the spacetime structure that results from the conversion of high energy photons in the core, to low energy photons that exit the photosphere. And then as the photons leave the photosphere there ought to manifest the

ogical variable

other effect I detailed in the HR diagram in another chapter.

Here, I want to focus on the spacetime curvature imposed on our planetary system by the sun. I began with the above discussion to make clear I don’t fully understand how it works. But one thing is clear, if spacetime curvature is ONLY imposed by massive objects, then we should expect a certain range of possible behaviors. But if it is also imposed mass to energy conversion reactions to any degree, and especially if it is imposed in opposition to mass generated spacetime curvature, then we should expect an entirely new class of phenomena to exist.

The sun is driving fusion at essentially, but not precisely, a constant rate. And the flow of energy out through the material of the sun is emitted into the universe at essentially, but not precisely, a constant rate. And for that reason, the spacetime curvature imposed by the sun on the planetary system might be time variable. If mass is the only thing that can curve spacetime, then spacetime curvature is not time variable. If energy flow in the form of photons or other particles also curves spacetime, then it must be time variable to some degree.

For this section I will assume that the model is right and that the spacetime curvature imposed by the sun is, time variable. If so, what new phenomena might we expect? To begin we need to understand that the sun vibrates like a spherical bell. And so the emissions coming from the sun are also time variable with many frequencies and each frequency having its own amplitude.

If, for example, the emissions from the sun happen to have a frequency that matches the

219

cosmolo

orbital period of a planet, then that planet ought to take on a degree of ellipticity in its orbital motions. The coupling of two resonant objects gets complicated fast. And if you add rotation for a planet that is also orbiting, you add more possible ways for interactions to manifest.

For this writing I’m out of time to go into depth on these concepts. So I’m going to just blast them at the page so they can make it into this first release of this book.

220

Venus is a planet that has some curious atmospheric behaviors. There is a polar vortex observed by ESA’s Venus Express spacecraft.

There is also a planetary wide atmospheric wave that circles the planet every 4.2 days or so. This wave has the shape of a “Y” if you could rotate the planet to look at it. The “Y” shape rotates around the planet, continuously.

ogical variable

Credit: NASA Pioneer Venus Orbiter The reason these atmospheric waves are interesting is because they are persistent and because they have a shape that implies something interesting from the context of time variable solar gravity. Imagine someone spinning a hula hoop around their waste. They remain in a fixed orientation, but with small subtle motions of their hips, they can keep the hula hoop rotating around them indefinitely.

If the solar gravity is slightly varying with a 4.2 day period, then these observations would make sense. The planet might be undulating toward and away from the sun and the magnitude of the solar tidal bulge in the atmosphere would be going up and down, slightly, but regularly, in cadence with the atmospheric motion. If that were the case, then the solar gravitational potential (time variable) might be driving the atmospheric motions.

The polar vortex would just be the effect seen at the poles, but the real phenomena relates to the planet wide atmospheric wave.

OK, so why mention this. There are planetary waves on all the planets including earth.

We have weather and so on. Well, the reason is because unlike the Earth and other planets, Venus isn’t rotating. The hard planet underneath the atmosphere makes about one rotation every 243 days. In other words, it is basically just sitting there, facing the sun, all the time. There is no day night cycle to speak of to drive thermal motions in the atmosphere. Something else is going on to cause a ~4 day periodic atmospheric effect.

I’ve tried to find a good analogy to describe this using common experience. For instance, taking a bucket of water and forcing the bucket to move in a small circle and watching the way the water sloshes around inside. But for an entire planet, the confinement is from

221

cosmolo

beneath and the atmosphere (if you could grab the entire planet and push it around in a circle) is sloshing around the outside of the ball. But if you think in terms of the person doing the hula hoop, and then contemplate the atmosphere being the hula hoop surrounding the spherical “rock”, then what you see is what you would expect to see.

222

For earth, there are again a great number of things that might be driven by time variable solar gravity. Among them are plate tectonics. Mountain ranges would act like off center masses that any time variable gravity of the sun could use to cause the earth to accelerate its rotation, or slow it down. It could drive one continent in one direction, and another in a different direction.

It could be the impetus for hurricanes for instance. If the period of the solar gravity variation was the same as the time for earth to rotate 15 degrees, then the size of the earth’s tidal bulge would vary up and down with that period. This variation would be on top of the 24 hour variation imposed by earth’s rotation. But if the period of solar excitation happened to match the earths rotational period (or harmonics of it) then after a single rotation the excitation would land back on top of the excitation effect imposed a day earlier. In that way, the excitation could amplify over time.

The earth moves around the sun on a slightly elliptical orbit. That means that there are two times each year when such a signal might overlap. For a 15 relative rotation degree effect, the two times of year would be spring and fall near the equinox. And that happens

ogical variable

to be when tropical storms get formed.

But even more than the tropical storms, the effect could show up in ocean currents. If the period matched earth’s rotation so that constructive interference were imposed, then a place on the ocean that was excited into rotation yesterday would again have the same excitation today and for many days in a row as the periods came into match. It turns out that oceanographers mapping out the ocean’s currents thought they had about 99 percent of the ocean’s kinetic energy accounted for just over a decade ago. They had mapped out the main currents like the Gulf Stream and so on all around the globe.

Then, a leading scientist found that throughout the oceans there are a plethora of vortices. The ocean has localized rotations, like whirlpools slowly turning the ocean in circles. It turned out that those vortices had more kinetic energy than the worlds major currents, combined. They were the principle depository of oceanic kinetic energy and had been missed prior to that discovery. I’ll add more detail later but for now am typing this last section off my head to get it into this first release later today.

The next interesting thing is that geophysicists studying earthquakes were working hard to account for all of the vibrations observed in their monitoring systems. After a major earthquake, the entire earth rings like a bell for days, in a wide variety of spherical oscilla-

223

cosmolo

tion models. Working to account for every movement the scientists discovered that the earth was incessantly ringing with a period of 5 minutes.

In other words, they found periods of time when no major earthquakes had occurred.

Next, using the equations they had worked out for the decay of ringing imposed by earthquakes, they could subtract off the little bit of excitation imposed by minor earthquakes around the world. With that, there should have been nothing remaining. But there was.

The earth was still ringing, incessantly, with a period of five minutes.

224

There was no known source of energy to drive that ringing. Some scientists looking further afield, noticed that there is a strong peak in the solar acoustic oscillations imposed by the granule motions. That peak happened to have a period of 5 minutes. So it has been proposed that the solar oscillations imposed a slight variation to the total radiation coming out of the sun, and that this solar irradiance variation would heat the atmosphere in time dependent fashion such that the atmospheric loading on the surface of the earth would go up and down with that period.

If, however, all of the solar acoustic oscillations are imprinted upon the solar gravitational potential to which the earth dances, then the size of the earths tidal bulges must go up and down with that period. Five minutes goes into 24 hours 288 times. So there would be 288 tiny ups and downs to the solar tidal bulges each day, and that would be the origin of the incessant ringing.

The earth’s weather is also variable in cadence with the solar 11 year sunspot and activity cycle. If you think of a cloud chamber, the way you make a cloud appear is that you suddenly drop the pressure inside of the cell, where the interior is filled with a saturated vapor. As the pressure drops, the vapor can condense into droplets. The same thing happens as moist air passes over an airplane wing when you land or take off from a humid location like Hawaii. So if the sun is jostling the earth more or less depending on its activity level, its no surprise that you’ll get more clouds and thus rain, during the phases when the solar actuation is greatest.

ogical variable

This mechanism, if its real, should be able to cause things ranging from storms to earthquakes. Earthquakes are interesting. They are a sort of stick slip friction process where the faults lock up and then build in stress, and eventually let go. To get such a system to “let go� in the laboratory, an efficient way to get a system to slide earlier than it otherwise would is to add a little bit of vibration to the system.

225

cosmolo

A

226

block on a table for example can be pulled with a rubber band. The band will stretch to about the same length each time just before the block slips. But if during one experiment the table is sitting still, and on another experiment you vibrate the table, the block

ogical variable

will always slip earlier (with less stretch of the rubber band) on the table when vibration is turned on.

So if the sun is jiggling the earth by any amount, and the intensity of that jiggling goes up and down over time, then the probability for earthquakes ought to go up and down with time. But the problem of earthquakes is very complicated and I’ve tried to find a fit to this effect without success. I still think it ought to be hiding in the data someone has already acquired. If they compare that data to the solar cycle, and especially to periods of intense vs low solar coronal mass ejection and flaring activity, they might just find a fit.

If there are periods that match the lunar cycle, then the moons orbit ought to be influenced to some degree. But again, remember that two resonant coupled systems can do some really strange things and one period of energy present might damp out the forcing from another period of energy.

There ought to be a length of day (LOD) variation for earths rotation. Here is a plot of the pressure at the bottom of the ocean.

And here is a plot of the Length Of Day, LOD as a function of time since 1996 and for the past two years.

227

cosmolo

The length of day variations are changes in the spin rate of the earth, whereas the pressure at the bottom of the ocean deals with the vertical height (temperature, atmospheric loading etc) of the water over the sensor. All of the plots vary on an annual basis. The LOD has been explained as a result of foliage growth in the northern hemisphere that adds mass at a slightly larger radius via leaf growth in trees, and then the leaves fall and the earth speeds up.

228

But how would a speeding up or slowing down of the earth result in pressure changes at the bottom of the ocean? If the solar gravity is time variable, it would be capable of doing both. That doesn’t mean it would, but it at least allows that it could.

There should be a place in the outermost reaches of our solar system, where the effect of flowing space from the sun balances with the effect of the Galaxy. The probable position of this effect is at about 150 AU at the solar heliosphere termination shock. It’s actually around 100AU upwind and 200AU downwind, so I’m averaging.

At that radius the spherical expansion of the solar space emissions likely balances with the emissions of all the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. For that reason, a stagnation region develops where matter is no longer given any impetus to flow away from the sun and Galactic effects take over. I’ve run calculations on this but those will have to wait for a next upload down the road.

Interestingly, you can use figures like these to predict the mass of the central super-

ogical variable

229

massive black hole at the center of our Galaxy. Knowing that the inward flow must reach the speed of light at the event horizon, it’s possible to noodle around and find some fits to galactic and solar properties that lead to an estimate of the black hole mass.

Another interesting phenomena is observed in the way spacecraft we’ve launched out into space behave. As spacecraft fly by a planet, they sometimes pick up or lose kinetic energy that is not accounted for by current gravitational theory. This relates to the Pioneer satellite acceleration mystery to some degree, though may be completely separate.

The Pioneer anomaly can be appreciated via Wikipedia and links there. It appeared that the unaccounted for slowing of those craft might have been dark matter related, which would for me mean, related to the slowing in the outward flow of space heading out of the sun. It has been “solved” which is to say that the scientists now think that thermal

cosmolo

emissions fully explain the orbital deviations. Heat emissions gave the satellite a bit of a push that was larger than the first analysis had deduced. I’m not fully convinced but accept that result for the time being.

230

The effect I would expect would be most pronounced close to the sun. So a new mission to search for the effect would be best if a satellite were launched so that it flew around Jupiter or some other planet such that its course was changed and it fell almost directly into the sun, slightly missing, and then speeding back off into the outer planet realm. If the effect exists where there is a flow of space out of the sun, then the craft should display some unexpected accelerations.

Meanwhile, satellites flying past earth have picked up an unusual small change in their kinetic energy after leaving earth. This was also seen on a fly by of I think, Saturn. Anderson at JPL is working on this. Treating the observations will be complicated, and I’m not confident they are related to what I’m writing about in this book. But they are phenomena that are strange and may be related.

ogical variable

231

BIG

cosmolo

232

BQNG

ogical variable

233

Space

234

time

and

p

planet

undulations

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

cosmolo

Black Hole Jets - Active Galaxies In this sequence of images and pictures I’ll walk through the idea that a black hole is an object with a core confined inside. To begin let’s recall that in this universe there is no such thing as a force of attraction. So a black hole cannot be an object that reaches outward to pull things inward. Rather, something on the outside must provide the impetus for things to flow in. And to persist, a black hole according to this model must have a core into which the aether filling the universe can flow and condense into a much higher density form, a condensate.

252

If what we call empty space is flowing into a black hole, then it’s actually easy to comprehend the existence of a black hole. Space flows in and condenses, and anything that gets too close to where the flow velocity reaches the speed of light is going to flow in along with the space. This is just the kayak paddler trying to paddle upstream as he falls over a waterfall. Once the water velocity exceeds his ability to paddle, he’s going over the falls and will hit the bottom with the water.

The “bottom” for a black hole is the core of aether condensate, where the vapor aether is crushed at enormous pressure into it’s condensate form. Because all photons, matter, and everything within our universe are made up of waves or vortices of one shape or another, in and made up of, the very same aether, they will be crushed into condensate along with space itself. The core, at unimaginable pressure and temperature, is kept confined by the continuous inward flow. The ram pressure keeps the core confined inside the event horizon.

But that idea isn’t stable. It can’t persist forever. And there are a number of ways that the core might breach confinement. In this first sequence of paintings and images I’ll describe one (a first) mechanism for the core to breach confinement.

It’s possible that a black hole could have aether flowing into it along radial lines. There might not be any rotation associated with the inward flowing aether. But this would be the odd ball, and in any real situation there will be some degree of rotation for the

ogical variable

inward flowing space. As rotation begins, an axis of rotation will form. But as with tornados, there could be localized rotation and vortices that could be imagined to persist.

For now I’ll focus on the bulk rotation induced by the rotation of the stars in the galaxy surrounding the supermassive black hole.

In this case, the rotation takes the form of a pair of vortices at the two poles of the spherical “hole� into which the aether is flowing and condensing. As the angular momentum of the galaxy increases, so too ought the angular momentum of aether flowing into the black hole at the galaxy center. This in turn will lead to the vortices at the poles becoming more intense and penetrating deeper into the interior of the hole.

Over time, as angular momentum is communicated from the stars orbiting a newly merged galaxy pair, the rotation near the black hole ought to increase. The vortices at the poles of the hole also ought to strengthen and penetrate deeper into the interior of the hole. All the while, the core is increasing in aether content. It is growing in size. Sooner or later, the ram pressure at the poles of the core ought to wane and the core ought to elongate along the axis.

If the ram pressure at the tips of the core is less than the internal pressure of the core, the core will breach confinement and shoot its aether condensate back out into our universe, the aether boiling as it expands. This ought to drive enormously intense jets out into our universe and we ought to be able to see them. They should be observed preferentially in galaxies with excess rotation.

Also, because we have the idea that aether is flowing out of stars, and also that aether is flowing into black holes, there must be a radius within any galaxy where the aether flow transitions from flowing into the black hole, to flowing out of the galaxy. We can reasonably expect to observe some unusual phenomena at that radius. Indeed we do observe large donut clouds of gas at radii well away from the central black holes, but deep in the interior of the host galaxies.

In the first image of the series, the flow into the black hole is radial. There is an event

253

cosmolo

horizon where the flow exceeds the speed of light and nothing could escape. But aside from that there isn’t much unusual. In the next image, the galaxy takes on a bit of rotation and we begin to see the formation of vortices within space around the black hole.

These are not representations of “gas” vortices. They are representing the rotation of space itself, or the way spacetime becomes twisted, at the poles.

254

As the rotation intensity increases, the vortices penetrate deeper into the interior and the ram pressure at the poles decreases so that the core elongates along the axial direction.

If the rotation gets too large, and the vortices ram pressure isn’t enough to maintain confinement of the core, it will breach and explosively boil. This ought to emit a supersonic jet of boiling vapor aether. But “supersonic” for aether means “superluminal” or faster than light, to us.

Many black hole jets are observed to eject light emitting stuff that expands with velocities many times the speed of light. There are ways to explain the observations based on the jets being pointed almost directly at us. But if this model is correct, then in the future we should observe incontrovertible proof that the faster than light observations stem from objects within the jet in fact moving at faster than light speed.

It is only reasonable that one jet will breach first. Once it does, however, the core will be thrust away from the jet just as a fireman is thrust away from the direction of the water flowing out of the fire hose. If he was on ice, he would accelerate away from the water flow direction. So the core of the black hole must be pushed by the emissions, away from the pole that breaches confinement first. That then leads to the second pole breaching confinement.

The closer the core is to a pole, the smaller the radial inflow convergence will be and so the smaller the inward ram pressure will be that tries to confine the jet. The jet on that side will be more intense, and thrust the core back toward the center of the black hole event horizon. The emissions ought to last for a long time as once the core breaches confinement it will need to run down in contents and intensity before the inward flowing aether can pinch off the outward flow.

ogical variable

It’s conceivable that the entire core of condensate could be depleted prior to shutting down the jets. It’s also conceivable that after the core has been significantly depleted, the jets could pinch off. But another interesting thing is that if the jets eject stars from the host galaxy, they will be ejected along the axis of rotation. When they rain back down into the host galaxy, they will be falling down along more radial lines than they had prior to being ejected. In other words, the ejected stars could shut down the process by randomizing the organized rotation of the galaxy so as to shut down the vortices from the outside.

This may be what’s happening in Centaurus A. In Centaurus A we see a pair of radio jets coming from the central massive black hole. We also see that this unusual galaxy has a greater than normal rotation, as evidenced by it’s dusty disk. But if we inspect a “deep” image of Centaurus A to see the faint extensions of the galaxy, we see that there are long stellar steams that are roughly aligned with the radio jets and perpendicular to the rotation axis. As those stars rain back down into the galaxy, its organized net rotation will be randomized and it will become an elliptical galaxy.

It seems to me, therefore, that spiral galaxies evolve to being elliptical galaxies in stages when they black holes breach confinement and shoot stars upward along the axis of rotation. As they rain down, the rotation is reduced, the vortices will abate, and the black hole will again become quiet with primarily radial inward flow of the aether.

We see the process of shutting down in the images provided where at first, one of the jets will pinch off. When that happens, just as when the first jet formed, the core will be pushed away from the jet and toward the opposing side of the event horizon. The still emitting jet will then pinch off as the ram pressure gets larger, but the core will coast toward the event horizon until it breaches confinement again, igniting a new one sided jet. The jet then pushes the core back toward and past center, and this oscillation process can continue for a long time producing a series of observable clouds of emission in the surrounding space.

255

cosmolo

M81 is a prime example of the back and forth behavior. And from the observations it may be that having double lobes is evidence of recent breach of confinement for that galaxy. The opposite is having a long series of lobes of radio emissions on two sides of the galaxy that result from this back and forth process after the first of the two jets first is turned off.

256

One key point to take away from this section is the idea that a black hole cannot pull anything inward. Rather, things are blown into the hole by the flow of aether, and thus space that is driven by the external pressure of the aether ocean within the center of the galaxy. In other words, the “mass” inside the black hole has little to do with what has been blown into the hole. Notice that the entire contents of the core in the black hole could reasonably be ejected during the jetting phase, completely emptying the interior of “mass” as we know it.

The “mass” of a black hole, then, relates not to what’s inside, but rather, it relates to the stars outside of the hole that are blowing aether into the hole. The greater the pressure the stars develop outside, the greater the inward flow of aether will be. And this then means that the larger the mass of a galaxy is, the larger the mass of its central black hole will be. It also means that if two galaxies have the same mass, but one has a larger concentration of stars in the center (a larger stellar density profile as a function of radius out into the galaxy) then that galaxy will have a “larger mass” black hole.

But what we’re really measuring is not the mass of the black hole, as things blown into the hole are disconnected from communication with our outside universe. What we’re really measuring is the aether pressure produced by the stars surrounding the black hole. Those stars are emitting aether and that drives up the local pressure of the aether in comparison to the pressure out in inter-galactic space. The higher the pressure, the greater the inflow, and the higher we determine the mass of that black hole to be.

Two things that have been observed that seem to fit this idea. First, the mass of black holes do turn out to be proportional to their host galaxies. Second, galaxies with radio jets, (active galaxies) do tend to have more angular momentum than do galaxies without

ogical variable

radio jets. But of course the extra angular momentum is invoked in the normal models for black hole jet formation as the source of energy to drive the EM fields that are proposed to power the jets.

That said, think about the idea that “stuff that wanted to fall into the black hole instead gets shot outward”. Then, remember that we’ve now seen this same jet formation in newborn T-tauri stars, second ignition planetary nebula stars with their FLIERs, and now in active galaxies. In every case the ejected material shoots much further out into space than it fell from. The matter falling into the black hole is falling in from a few hundred light years, yet is ejected outward a million light years. Why wouldn’t it just be shot upward a few hundred or maybe a thousand light years, within the host galaxy, and then fall back inward.

The idea that these jets in active galaxies shoot material a million light years into space is about as reasonable as expecting a tornado on earth to fire air upward that hits the moon. It doesn’t happen. It slows and remains within our atmosphere.

Assuming that the jets can completely empty the core of the black hole, it’s easy to imagine a spherical vortex with two polar vortices where the flow of aether (space) is into the hole around the equatorial regions, and outward at the poles. This could produce a persistent structure. And because the aether flowing inward in this case would never condense, it would just be a process where space flows inward around the majority of the spherical region, and back outward through the poles. The opening angle ought to be larger than it would be with a supersonic jet driven by aether ablation from condensate to vapor.

We actually see different shapes for the black hole jets. In Centaurus A, the jets have a large opening angle and do not extend very far out into the surrounding space. They remain within the galaxy itself. In contrast, objects like Cygnus A or 3C273 display intense, narrow, highly collimated and million light year long jets that reach out to distances of neighboring galaxies. I think the difference between those two classes of jets is “core” or “no core”. Which means, counter to our estimates of ~5E7 solar mass black

257

cosmolo

hole, the black hole mass is really ~0. In other words, there’s nothing inside.

258

What we’re measuring is the way stars and other objects interact with flowing space.

And we assign a value to the mass of the black hole that accounts for our observations.

But the effect results from flow, not from stuff inside the hole reaching out to pull on stars on the outside. And if we were able to measure the “gravity” of Centaurus A’s black hole near it’s poles, I expect we’d find that it had negative gravity. In other words, the outward flowing space would produce an anti-gravitational effect there, much like the effect imposed by stellar photon emission considered earlier, but of course dramatically more intense.

I’m stretching pretty far in these comments, and am likely wrong about several. I put forward the comments not to assert I have things figured out, but rather, to convey a radical new way of thinking about the object that likely no one has considered. That way, in the future, these ideas can be explored and the one’s that are right can be adopted and the one’s that are found to have been incorrect can be discarded. But it’s not likely anyone is going to come up with the ideas without a lot of contemplation, so here they are for consideration.

ogical variable

Pulsars, Partially Trapped Black Holes Type II supernovae take on a wide variety of forms. They take place when stars with masses ranging from 8 to 50 solar masses build up an iron core that approaches 1.4 solar masses. At that point, the core implodes and transforms into neutrons as described in a previous chapter. If the star is larger still, it might collapse so intensely that it forms a black hole. These black holes wind up with a mass several times the mass of the sun, but are a millionth or a billionth the size of their supermassive cousins in the centers of galaxies.

Type II supernovae of this ilk produce neutron stars, and an expanding supernova explosion remnant. The remnant expands and fades over time. Eventually, we are able to see the neutron star through the glow of the explosion remnant. There are in a sense, three different kinds of neutron stars that are formed. The first and perhaps most common is just a simple neutron star that’s sitting in the center of the supernova remnant.

The second is a neutron star that is flying across the galaxy at a high rate of speed. And the third is a pulsar.

It’s a bit strange to think of the first type, normal neutron stars, as boring. They are the result of a tremendously powerful supernova explosion after all. But in comparison to the second two types of neutron stars, well, you’ll see. The second path, the neutron stars observed travelling at great velocity, might be thought to be the result of interactions with other stars, like a space craft getting a planetary velocity boost. But really, this idea dies before it is launched.

What’s more probable is that they are getting a kick some how from the explosion process such that they are ejected from the explosion in a direction at high velocity. If the explosion goes one way and the newly formed neutron star recoils in the opposite direction, then we could easily understand what we see.

The ROSAT full field and Chandra close up images of the supernova remnant show us the overall expanding cloud of gas along with a close up of a plume of gas punching out

259

cosmolo

through the larger cloud. This is the material ejected by the supernova expanding into gas ejected by the star long before as best I can deduce what’s being said about this object. That said, the entire nebula is about the same size as the entire Crab nebula and of other remnants that are thousands of years old. We can also see the neutron star a little to the right of center.

260

Chandra Reveals Cloud Disrupted By Supernova Shock

RX J0822-4300 in Puppis A: Chandra Discovers Cosmic Cannonball

By taking pictures of the neutron star at different times, it is possible to determine the distance the star has moved across our field of view. It’s important to remember that we can only see the left right motion, so if it’s coming toward us or moving away from us as well to the right, then it will be moving faster than we can deduce from the pictures alone.

In the inset, we see the positions of the star in 1999 and again in 2005.

ogical variable

 We also know the distance to this remnant reasonably well. This allows the velocity of the neutron star to be determined, and the value found is around 1500 km/s. That’s a trip across the United States in about 2 seconds. We also glean a few other things from the image. First of all, the overall size of the cloud, or nebula, is around 10 light years in diameter.

Crab Nebula: a Dead Star Creates Celestial Havoc

Compare this nebula to the well known Crab supernova remnant. This star was actually observed when it exploded by Chinese astronomers in 1054 AD. So that’s about 950 years ago. The Crab nebula has a diameter around 11 light years and is expanding at a rate of around 1500 km/s. Notice that this nebula is expanding at about the same velocity as the neutron star is flying across the Puppis nebula. In contrast, here we see that the crab neutron star is sitting right in the center of the nebula and not moving very fast at all.

The Crab neutron star is a pulsar, and we can more clearly see it in the close up Hubble image. There are movies of the behavior of this pulsar that you can watch on the web at http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=CXuNRMVxUdY The movie tells about the pulsar and gamma ray flares that are being emitted now and then by the pulsar.

That’s an entire mystery worth looking into on its own, and possibly related to the Puppis neutron star velocity.

Combined X-Ray and Optical Images of the Crab Nebula

261

cosmolo

The Puppis SN image is supposed to be about 10 light years across. The neutron star in that nebula is supposed to be moving at around 1500 km/s. And the explosion is supposed to have taken place around 3700 years ago. If the neutron star has been travelling at 1500 km/s for 3700 years, it would have travelled about around 18.5 light years. In other words, it would have had to have begun it’s journey, 3700 years ago, from a location outside of and far to the left of the nebula.

The distance, 18.5 light years, is about 3 and a half times the radius of the entire nebula.

This doesn’t make sense.

262

The directions of the star in comparison to what appears to me to be the origin of the supernova, to the upper left of the star, doesn’t fit the appearance of the direction of the observed shocked gas in the Chandra image. The shock appears to also have come from the supernova location, but those two directions form almost a 90 degree angle.

They are not 180 degrees opposed as one would expect if the gas was emitted as a jet that accelerated the neutron star. Perhaps I need to contemplate this one more deeply to better understand the images.

But let me use these images to describe a possible acceleration mechanism that is outside of current physics. Whether this mechanism actually occurs, or whether it applies to the Puppis system I don’t know. But the mechanism is interesting in its own right.

Given that a black hole in this model is not an object that pulls everything in, we should expect that black holes can under select circumstances, explode, or breach confinement.

I described one way this might occur in supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies. And in the original discussion about the implosion of the iron core in a massive star, I described how the endothermic transformation of iron nuclei into neutrons is highly endothermic and must induce an inward flow of aether, and thus space.

So it’s conceivable that a black hole could form, during the intense implosion process.

From there, if the implosion intensity is not sufficient to maintain confinement of the black hole, we ought to expect that it will explode by any path available. If that path is through the neutron star material along a direction where the confinement isn’t ad-

ogical variable

equate, then an enormous burst of boiling aether, or emission of space, ought to manifest. This is just the same process we already discussed for supermassive black hole jet breaches.

A pulsar, then, may actually be pulsing, radially. There may be a black hole core trapped in the center of the Crab Pulsar that is radially oscillating the overlying neutron star material. With each pulse, a portion of the black hole core inside the pulsar vaporizes off and is emitted as newly formed space along with any photon vortices that carry away the emitted aether. A larger black hole would pulse the star at a greater rate and boil off the contents of the black hole faster. As the black hole wanes in size, it becomes harder to push the neutron star material outward and the pulsation period slows.

The addition of pulsation does not remove the possible rotation of the neutron star. The rotation would combine with the pulsation to produce what we observe from the outside as for instance, the Crab Nebula.

It’s also conceivable that the core within the neutron star could breach confinement all at once and be shot outward. If that were to happen, an intense jet of energy in the form of boiling aether (condensed space boiling to the medium of normal space), most likely breaking up into gamma rays, would be shot outward. One could imagine this process most easily as being part of the initial explosion process. And perhaps it often (or always when and if it occurs) is. But it also may be that long after the supernova explosion, a pulsar harboring a central black hole pulsing and boiling away, might breach confinement and the ejection of the contents of the black hole would then provide the acceleration of the neutron star.

If so in the case of Puppis, the dramatic different directions between what appears to be the origin of the supernova to the upper left of the star, and upper right of the gas jet, might be understood. Or, perhaps, I’ve got these images wrong somehow and the jet and star motion are aligned and I’m missing the point.

Still, I can’t piece together the fact that at 1500 km/s the neutron star should have trav-

263

cosmolo

elled a distance almost 4 times larger than the radius of the entire nebula. I see no way to understand the neutron star velocity along with its current position and the origin of the supernova. The distance from the supernova origin appears to be around 5 light years vs the 18.5 light years the star should have travelled since the SN explosion.

Another interesting thing about the above possibility is that it provides a new mechanism to consider for the creation of gamma ray bursts. We may be observing the aftermath of a gamma ray burst that was ejected from the interior of a pulsar when an internal, inadequately confined black hole breached confinement and boiled off into space.

264

ogical variable

Future Technologies One obvious question is the curt “So what?” So what if matter is made of some sort of waves in an ocean of aether, and spacetime is another sort of waves in the same ocean.

How does that affect me? Well, it will affect you if the ideas are right because if the universe is made of particles, fields, and a property called spacetime, then the technologies we see today will improve but not dramatically change. We’ll use EM fields forever, throw stuff out the tail pipe of a rocket to go fast, and use airplanes to travel long distances. Oh, and my favorite, we’ll forever “roll along the ground” to travel from home to work to store to vacation adventure, in cars.

If instead, the universe is permeated by a structure of standing waves we’ve named spacetime, a real structure of waves, and what we call matter and so on are other forms of waves within the same ocean, then new possibilities arise.

First of all, if a photon is a smoke ring like toroidal vortex of any geometry, then the speed of the vortex is the speed of light within our ocean. But, in order that a vortex advance at some velocity, compression waves within the medium the vortex is made of must travel much faster than the vortex velocity or it could not remain coherent. In other words, the speed of light cannot be the fastest that anything can travel.

For other fluids like water, the velocity of a compression wave can be a thousand times faster than a transverse wave. Compression waves within water interact with the seafloor and with the water itself to produce the changes in wave height and interfere to produce the wave velocity of a meter per second or so. Those compression waves, in contrast, move at around 1500 meters per second in water.

Likewise it seems reasonable to me that we will in the future learn how to intentionally drive compression waves within the aether. When we do, we’ll have communications that propagate a thousand times faster than what we have today with EM based

265

cosmolo

communications. Now I’m not a UFO nut, but I am interested in space and enjoy science fiction. It also makes sense to me that the chances that earth is the only place in the universe with life is vanishingly close to absurd. And in the context of our 14 billion year old universe, with mankind one hundred years into modern electronic technologies, that makes us the babies on the galactic block.

266

It seems likely to me that the reason SETI (the search for extraterrestrial life) hasn’t located any extraterrestrial life is because they’re listening for smoke signals in a galaxy where any advanced civilization is using aether compression waves. We’re using the wrong technology and will only stand a chance of finding another infantile civilization in the short period following the discovery of electromagnetism and prior to discovering aether compression wave technologies.

I’m intrigued a bit by reports years back about rotating superconductors reputedly causing a gravitational like effect. That makes sense to me. It should be possible to construct devices that interact with the structure of spacetime directly, as an acoustic structure of standing waves. This ought to allow a variety of new technologies ranging from far faster than light speed communications, to levitation.

To jump into this new arena, though, we need to build new devices that interact with all four phase angles of spacetime vibrations. Today, we use EM, which is to say, positive and negative charges. Those are just 2 out of the 4 phase angles. And we have the idea of neutral, but we don’t quite have the idea of two kinds of neutral such that there’s neutral 90 and neutral 270 that do the same things as positive and negative.

Levitation is perhaps the most interesting class of devices. I’ll just suggest that there ought to be a way (perhaps I know what it is and hopefully will one day with funding work on it) to thrust against, spacetime. And, given that spacetime is everywhere, such a device would be able to levitate just like we hear described in accounts of UFO observations.

Today, we get into space by throwing hot gases out the tail pipe of a rocket. Let’s as-

ogical variable

sume for discussion that we could instead, curve spacetime and form a bubble of curved spacetime that surrounded our ship. What might the difference in energy be to get into space via these two different mechanisms? We know the drill for space craft so I won’t bore you with that. If you jump off the ground, a couple inches, you have overcome the pull of gravity and imposed an upward velocity on the mass of your body. You did it in a non conservative way, using your muscles.

What I’m suggesting is that it may be possible to intentionally curve spacetime around an object such that it “falls” up. The energy to curve spacetime ought to be about the same as you expended to jump off the ground. The difference is that once you curved spacetime with these devices, it would remain curved just as a magnet maintains its field in a superconducting magnet where electrons travel around within superconductors.

If this were possible, think about how life would change. We wouldn’t need to “roll along the ground” in cars. We could lift up, move laterally, and then lower down to our destination. Roads could in the future, be converted into public green spaces.

What an amazing and wonderful transformation that would be for cities. Of course as in the moving Fifth Element, we’d need to create highways in the sky, all GPS computer guided of course.

But what’s more is that if such a technology were possible, then a trip to the moon would take about two hours. Mars would take around 8 hours to get to, and Jupiter and Saturn would take a few days. The entire solar system and indeed, our local part of the galaxy would suddenly open up to exploration and visits.

And if the above new technologies aren’t enough, within the context of an aether universe where aether can condense into a more dense state, it ought to be possible to accelerate a craft close to the speed of light, and then intentionally drive the condensation process and fabricate a spacetime bubble within and around the craft. We ought to one day be able to travel faster than the speed of light. If this idea turns out to be true, (and I can’t really see how it could be impossible given that electrons already do

267

cosmolo

it, black holes do it, so a well designed machine ought to also be able to do it, long after I’m gone no doubt), then we will reasonably open up exploration of the galaxy on a larger scale.

268

Now while I’m wandering way out into science fiction future concepts, let me toss in my take on UFO’s. Basically, my studies of this model lead me to conclude that faster than light travel is probable, albeit in our far distant future, long after we solve the levitation problem. And given the age of the universe, it seems probable to me there are many other civilizations out there that are far more advanced that we are. They will already have faster than light travel capabilities.

So that makes it plausible and even logical that we would be visited by aliens. Imagine that it had been millions of years since our civilization went through our current technological period where we just came to understand how to build a computer. There would be precious little remaining of your cultures evolution to the galactic people you had become. So, if you ran across earth, your anthropologists would want to study earthlings and watch their development as they rise into technology. There would be no other way to study your own origins, much as our anthropologists study the apes.

I find it comical that the UFO reports tell about so many crashed UFOs. If they have the technology to get here, they aren’t going to crash. And they aren’t going to let us know they are here because that would ruin their observations. The only way there may have been crashes is if they wanted to toss down a UFO to see how we would react.

ogical variable

269

270

271

272

Dust Disk Around a Black Hole in Galaxy NGC 4261

Dust Disk Around a Black Hole in Galaxy NGC 7052

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

Spiral Galaxy M81 Details 7

282

283

284

285

286

287

Hubble Photographs Grand Design Spiral Galaxy M81

288

289

290

291

292

Radio/Optical overlay radio galaxy 3C31

293

Radio Jets of 3C449

294

295

296

297

298

Radio Quasar 3C175

299

Radio Quasar 3C334

300

301

302

303

cosmolo

Here is an image showing faster than light speed motions for the jet in M87. In order for the jet to appear to be moving this fast, the jet would have to be aligned to our line of sight to less than 20 degrees. If the jets that display faster than light speed motions were all aligned close to our line of sight, then those objects would on average have a smaller projection size on the sky as compared to other similar objects. But this is not the case. The faster than light speed radio lobes are pretty much the same projected size as the average.

304

ogical variable

What hasn’t yet been discovered to my knowledge, is a good identification of a galaxy with a pair of currently active jets, both of them at the same time showing faster than light speed ejections. That observation would put a big nail in the coffin of the “alignment” model. It would be hard to align a pair of oppositely emitted jets so that both were pointed at us.

Looking at the overall structure of M87 at a variety of scales, one doesn’t glean the impression that one side is appreciably different from the other such that we ought to think one side is coming toward us and the other is heading away. And if the jet we see now isn’t headed right at us, then it really must be moving at faster than the speed of light. And if that’s true, then the only thing that makes sense to me is that the jet actually originates inside of the event horizon, at the surface of a core of aether condensate (condensed space) that is explosively boiling and shooting out of the axis that is failing to maintain confinement of the core, for now.

Later when the core is depleted and stars ejected by the jet begin raining down onto the galaxy, and the net rotation of the galaxy interior is eliminated, the jet will pinch off and fade into memory.

305

A rose made of galaxies

306

Hubble’s newest camera takes a deep look at two merging galaxies

Stellar Nursery in the arms of NGC 1672

307