Cmb And The Construction Of Galaxies Using Unruh Effect And Hawking Raditation

[devin553344]

I've described the dark energy (vacuum energy) as a charge quantization of the CMB. It's a precise equation which I included derivation similar to a photon gas. This allows the CMB to have a photon energy of a microwave, but collectively as a photon gas it has a charge quantization that matches the dark energy. An interesting fact: If the charge of the particles that make up the earth were not void during binding with matter, the earth would be an electromagnetic mass black hole, which I also calculated in the theory. But photons have no mass to nullify their charge during a binding process, therefore the charge of the photon does exist and must be calculated to show the characteristics of a photon gas. :) I've included the photon gas EM derivation in the second pdf file in the OP.

Edited January 5, 2019 by devin553344

[exchemist]

I updated the CMB now to reflect a strange concept that I'm still trying to figure out. But the Stephan-Boltzmann law type radiation of the CMB matches a peculiar energy of the vacuum. This if the vacuum energy had a migration velocity related to the fine structure and towards and out of the event horizon. The update is in the second attachment in the original post.

 

I guess I have a hard time believing that the CMB is caused from some big bang. This is because if there was a cosmic background then in my mind it would already be gone and it certainly would not be a steady value to measure. In other words, if we were the origin of the big bang in position and CMB was radiation from that explosion then how could it not have radiated away already?

Away to where?

[OceanBreeze]

 

Let me ask you a question. If the earth had a spherical hole in it's center, and you were standing in that hole, do you think you would be compressed into a point at the center or pulled outward towards the surrounding mass? 

 

 

 

Devin

 

I think it is neither one. The gravity would be totally cancelled out and you would be weightless.

[devin553344]

Away to where?

 

Well when I envision and explosion like the big bang concept that creates planets and stars, I see the radiation as starting at a center point and radiating outward spherically. Am I missing some understanding to explosions? So then I guess in my view, the light would never be seen. But then I supposed if you could explain an exponential growth of an explosion it could travel faster than light and therefore create a CMB concept. But I don't see how an exponential growth could happen faster than light.

 

Unless you're stating that the vacuum just somehow exploded everywhere with energy, but then where did the energy come from? So does the big bang have an origin and therefore a center point, or did it explode all of space somehow.

 

So I guess if you understand the big bang concept than I need to be explained it better, I read the wikipedia article and I could see a source of the big bang.

[devin553344]

I think it is neither one. The gravity would be totally cancelled out and you would be weightless.

 

Right that is another interpretation and one that I have considered. Interesting ideas :)

[exchemist]

 

 

Let me ask you a question. If the earth had a spherical hole in it's center, and you were standing in that hole, do you think you would be compressed into a point at the center or pulled outward towards the surrounding mass? The metric solutions that describe Einsteins field equations go with the first idea of being compressed towards the center of mass, instead of being pulled apart towards the surrounding mass...... 

 

[snip]

 

 

How is it possible that you study all these theories of gravity, the Unruh effect, write papers on it all, and so on, but are somehow apparently unaware of Newton's Shell Theorem?

[exchemist]

Well when I envision and explosion like the big bang concept that creates planets and stars, I see the radiation as starting at a center point and radiating outward spherically. Am I missing some understanding to explosions? So then I guess in my view, the light would never be seen. But then I supposed if you could explain an exponential growth of an explosion it could travel faster than light and therefore create a CMB concept. But I don't see how an exponential growth could happen faster than light.

 

Unless you're stating that the vacuum just somehow exploded everywhere with energy, but then where did the energy come from? So does the big bang have an origin and therefore a center point, or did it explode all of space somehow.

 

So I guess if you understand the big bang concept than I need to be explained it better, I read the wikipedia article and I could see a source of the big bang.

The CMB pervades the entire universe. That's the point. So there is background radiation, everywhere, equivalent to a temperature of 2.7K.

 

So no place in nature exists that is colder than 2.7K.  

 

Ego, the radiation cannot radiate away. 

[devin553344]

How is it possible that you study all these theories of gravity, the Unruh effect, write papers on it all, and so on, but are somehow apparently unaware of Newton's Shell Theorem?

 

I'm still learning physics and that is an area that I am still considering. The reason is this: The black hole metrics describe a point center to the gravitation, and at some point any mass would have infinite time dilation. At least that's what I got from it. And if the black hole metrics took into consideration that gravity becomes null in the center, why suggest the black hole metrics that have a time dilation that increases towards the center of the black hole? Wouldn't they have to use a mass density summation instead of the black hole metric?

 

But then Einstein suggested this idea of a cosmological constant as counteracting the gravitational collapse, and his vacuum energy would pull objects outward away from the center of mass, suggesting more likely that one would be pulled in all directions if you stood in the center of the earth. At least that's the way I interpreted it. Am I seeing something incorrectly?

Edited January 5, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

The CMB pervades the entire universe. That's the point. So there is background radiation, everywhere, equivalent to a temperature of 2.7K.

 

So no place in nature exists that is colder than 2.7K.  

 

Ego, the radiation cannot radiate away. 

 

So then the big bang occurred thru all of space? And there are infinite galaxies out there?

Edited January 5, 2019 by devin553344

[exchemist]

I'm still learning physics and that is an area that I am still considering. The reason is this: The black hole metrics describe a point center to the gravitation, and at some point any mass would have infinite time dilation. At least that's what I got from it. And if the black hole metrics took into consideration that gravity becomes null in the center, why suggest the black hole metrics that have a time dilation that increases towards the center of the black hole? Wouldn't they have to use a mass density summation instead of the black hole metric?

 

But then Einstein suggested this idea of a cosmological constant as counteracting the gravitational collapse, and his vacuum energy would pull objects outward away from the center of mass, suggesting more likely that one would be pulled in all directions if you stood in the center of the earth. At least that's the way I interpreted it. Am I seeing something incorrectly?

If you are inside a spherical shell of matter, you feel no gravity at any point inside. OK? That is the answer to the question you posed in post 23 which I highlighted in bold. Newton's Shell Theorem is here, if you want to read about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

 

How you use this in your speculations I leave to you. I'm just interested in keeping the basic physical science kosher, as far as possible.

[exchemist]

So then the big bang occurred thru all of space? And there are infinite galaxies out there?

Yes, it occurred through all of space because it was an expansion of space itself.  

 

The CMBR is what is left from the point at which the universe stopped being a plasma and became transparent to radiation, about 380,000yrs after the Big Bang, according to the theory.

 

So it permeates all of space and cannot radiate away.

 

According to the theory there are not infinite galaxies out there, because the universe is not infinite. But I'm not a cosmologist so cannot help you much further on the detail.  

[devin553344]

If you are inside a spherical shell of matter, you feel no gravity at any point inside. OK? That is the answer to the question you posed in post 23 which I highlighted in bold. Newton's Shell Theorem is here, if you want to read about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

 

How you use this in your speculations I leave to you. I'm just interested in keeping the basic physical science kosher, as far as possible.

 

So then am I correct in accepting the idea that the shell theorem led to the black metric equations, such as the Schwarzschild metric? Where one could consider the mass density increasing towards its center, thus allowing for singularities?

[exchemist]

So then am I correct in accepting the idea that the shell theorem led to the black metric equations, such as the Schwarzschild metric? Where one could consider the mass density increasing towards its center, thus allowing for singularities?

Eh? No I don't think so. I don't see how any of that follows. The whole idea of a black hole, surely is that the mass is concentrated at a mathematical point, whereas the Shell Theorem is all about the gravitational effect of s spherically symmetrical extended object.

[devin553344]

Eh? No I don't think so. I don't see how any of that follows. The whole idea of a black hole, surely is that the mass is concentrated at a mathematical point, whereas the Shell Theorem is all about the gravitational effect of s spherically symmetrical extended object.

 

OK I think I see your point.  I found in the article on the Schwarzschild metric where it only describes the outside of a black hole event horizon. I had thought there was some singularity at the center of a black hole, but now it's unclear to me.

Edited January 5, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

I added an equation that relates an elementary charge to the mass of a particle. This concept may explain the mass of particles from electromagnetic energy. It's in the second file in the original post.

[devin553344]

I added an equation to relate the proton stability (proton mass) to the vacuum energy directly thru the charge relationship of Unruh temperature. It's included in the second file in the original post.

[exchemist]

Is anyone else sane going to comment on these theories, I find them very interesting.and they have improved since the first post. 

I suppose I am in no position to comment on whether or not I am regarded as sane :) , but I've taken a quick look at the first 2 pages and am forced to the conclusion that the author does not understand a number of concepts in physical science, such as energy, mass and electric charge.

 

So I do not propose to get bogged down in further analysis of this, unless you have found something of particular interest in it that you would like to discuss..