# Modified Raychauduri Equation With Poincare Symmetry And Non-Conservation

296 replies to this topic

### #290 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1369 posts

Posted 28 June 2017 - 04:09 AM

As for something more substantial, I finally found Collins and Hawking’s full paper on THE ROTATION AND DISTORTION OF THE UNIVERSE, and it does not look good for any rotating universe hypothesis.

At the bottom of page 13 of his paper "Soft Hair on Black Holes", Stephen Hawking writes that the Compton wavelength $\lambda$ (is equivalent to) $\frac {\hbar}{M}$ when he was actually referring to the reduced Compton wavelength $\frac{\lambda}{2 \pi}$ not $\lambda$. If you don't pick this one up your M will become $2 \pi$ larger than it should be, especially when $\hbar$ and $\lambda$ are both constant. .

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf

### #291 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Explaining

• Members
• 527 posts

Posted 28 June 2017 - 04:24 AM

At the bottom of page 13 of his paper "Soft Hair on Black Holes", Stephen Hawking writes that the Compton wavelength $\lambda$ (is equivalent to) $\frac {\hbar}{M}$ when he was actually referring to the reduced Compton wavelength $\frac{\lambda}{2 \pi}$ not $\lambda$. If you don't pick this one up your M will become $2 \pi$ larger than it should be, especially when $\hbar$ and $\lambda$ are both constant. .

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf

Yes, what does that have to do with what you wrote earlier; about the ratio of total matter to visible matter being almost equal to 2π as indicative of a rotating universe?

In fact, what does the Compton wavelength have to do with a rotating universe?

Edited by OceanBreeze, 28 June 2017 - 04:25 AM.

### #292 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Explaining

• Members
• 738 posts

Posted 29 June 2017 - 10:57 PM

Since I have been writing the book, I have compared the second draft of equations, compared it with the latex in this work and so weeded out the very last of any inconsistencies that existed in there.

I also came across this paper which seems related to the studies - interesting because I had never thought of the term I have been using in the Friedmann equations as a one-form

https://arxiv.org/pd...c/9411022v1.pdf

Edited by Dubbelosix, 30 June 2017 - 12:48 AM.

### #293 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1369 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 12:42 AM

Yes, what does that have to do with what you wrote earlier; about the ratio of total matter to visible matter being almost equal to 2π as indicative of a rotating universe?

In fact, what does the Compton wavelength have to do with a rotating universe?

The difference between the reduced Compton wavelength and the standard or non reduced Compton wavelength is the same as the ratio between calculated matter and visible matter. Note that any observed photon has a standard or non reduced Compton wavelength that can be converted into a reduced Compton wavelength by dividing by $2 \pi$. If you conflate the 2 (and use a unitary c) in the equation below your mass will be out by a factor of $2 \pi$.

https://en.wikipedia...pton_wavelength

Relationship between the reduced and non-reduced Compton wavelength

The reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass on the quantum scale. Equations that pertain to inertial mass like Klein-Gordon and Schrödinger's, use the reduced Compton wavelength. The non-reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass that has been converted into energy. Equations that pertain to the conversion of mass into energy, or to the wavelengths of photons interacting with mass, use the non-reduced Compton wavelength.

A particle of mass m has a rest energy of E = mc2. The non-reduced Compton wavelength for this particle is the wavelength of a photon of the same energy. For photons of frequency f, energy is given by

$E=hf=\frac {hc}{\lambda}=mc^2$,

which yields the non-reduced or standard Compton wavelength formula if solved for λ.

### #294 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Explaining

• Members
• 527 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 02:34 AM

The difference between the reduced Compton wavelength and the standard or non reduced Compton wavelength is the same as the ratio between calculated matter and visible matter. Note that any observed photon has a standard or non reduced Compton wavelength that can be converted into a reduced Compton wavelength by dividing by $2 \pi$. If you conflate the 2 (and use a unitary c) in the equation below your mass will be out by a factor of $2 \pi$.

https://en.wikipedia...pton_wavelength

What is your point? Is simply that $2 \pi$ is involved in both cases? Well, $2 \pi$ is also involved in the geometry of my dinner plate.

What does any of this have to do with a supposed rotating universe?

Edited by OceanBreeze, 30 June 2017 - 02:41 AM.

### #295 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Explaining

• Members
• 738 posts

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:08 PM

### #296 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Explaining

• Members
• 738 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 10:29 AM

I am happy to say, that after 4 months or so, my book is finally completed (from my end). It still has another contributor (Matti) who will be bringing in his expertise into the work.

I did find this quote in the work that I find very relevant to the homogeneity problem:

'A photon however, to travel over a distance of a centimetre will take 30 billionths of a second – the inflation of the universe which in the earliest working models was smaller than the size of a proton to 10cm in only 15 x 10^-33 seconds. You see, physicists modelled the universe from scales below the size of a proton for a good reason. The initial, most earliest models found discrepancies all over the place.

They found if the universe was not small enough, it could not account for the size of the universe and there was simply not enough time to allow light to reach all of spacetime. Another problem persisted, if the universe expanded without inflation, background inhomogeneities would exist. Later Hoyle and Narlikar would provide a model in which matter-energy creation was not a single event known as a big bang, but energy and matter could have been released gradually as it expanded. Later that same idea would go to developing the steady state, which in its own form, has been falsified. '

Edited by Dubbelosix, 15 July 2017 - 10:33 AM.

### #297 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Explaining

• Members
• 738 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 10:31 AM

I am happy to day, that after 4 months or so, my book is finally completed (from my end). It still has another contributor (Matti) who will be bringing in his expertise into the work.

I did find this quote in the work that I find very relevant to the homogeneity problem:

'A photon however, to travel over a distance of a centimetre will take 30 billionths of a second – the inflation of the universe which in the earliest working models was smaller than the size of a proton to 10cm in only 15 x 10^-33 seconds. You see, physicists modelled the universe from scales below the size of a proton for a good reason. The initial, most earliest models found discrepancies all over the place.

They found if the universe was not small enough, it could not account for the size of the universe and there was simply not enough time to allow light to reach all of spacetime. Another problem persisted, if the universe expanded without inflation, background inhomogeneities would exist. Later Hoyle and Narlikar would provide a model in which matter-energy creation was not a single event known as a big bang, but energy and matter could have been released gradually as it expanded. Later that same idea would go to develop the steady state, which in its own form, has been falsified. '

Before even reading Hoyle and Narlikars interpretation of matter-distribution, I never did like the idea there were massive amounts of energy crammed into a spacetime that could very well be singular in nature because of it. The energy, in those massive amounts, doesn't make sense and it makes for sense as a universe expands, matter and energy is gradually released to ensure homogeneity.

!) an interesting question

''does this mean that the universe was chaotic  or more ordered?

Physicists tend to think of the big bang as a state of very low entropy, perhaps these cases are related.

Edited by Dubbelosix, 15 July 2017 - 10:49 AM.