Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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

Hawking radiation Unruh Effect Cosmological constant Black hole

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 06:58 AM

I have constructed a theory that may be interesting to some readers. The units all check out and the values equation to within .1%.

 

The theory basically states that Einstein left some unfinished work to be performed. Namely the cosmological constant defines a black hole. Therefore I have theorized everything surrounding that concept and find validity and relationships to particle nature (the electron and proton, neutron, neutrino even (not included yet))

 

I can accurately calculate the Cosmic microwave background CMB temperature and relate it to the cosmological constant equation thru electric quantization. I concluded it may be applicable between positive and negative charge interactions of the photon cloud.

 

The theory gives the elementary charge to all point charges in space.

 

If this is interesting to you then please read the theory. I've attached the PDF file, the known constant used in the theory are listed at the bottom of the theory.

 

Here is the theory:

 

file removed

 

Thanks,

 

Devin


Edited by devin553344, 10 April 2019 - 09:59 AM.

  • Flummoxed likes this

#2 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 09:30 AM

Hi Dean 

 

I am no expert, but having quickly scanned down your paper. 

 

"Point particles based on the Hawking radiation of the vacuum energy (The Electron & Proton): If every point in space may be considered to be a black hole center, then also every point in space may have event horizons directed at it from all directions of space. This Hawking radiation might form a point energy particle. The electron will be a 4 dimensional form of Hawking radiation:"

 

This theory has some parallels with theoretical planck particles, that are theorized to evaporate due to Hawking radiation https://en.wikipedia...Planck_particle

 

There are number of models around theorizing particles are based around micro black holes or wormholes https://en.wikipedia...k_hole_electron , others exist using more dimensions. 

 

The LHC is looking for micro Black holes but has not found any yet https://en.wikipedia...cro_black_hole 

 

Hawking radiation if I understand it correctly supposes 2 quantum fluctuations are separated by a BH's gravity, with one virtual particle disappearing into a black hole and the other escaping the event horizon?

 

Focusing on just the particle side of your pdf are you stating, that primordial particles might be formed when 2 quantum black holes form near 2 quantum fluctuations and separate them in a similar way to Hawking radiation. Your 5th dimension I may be incorrectly assuming to be a wormhole between the 2 quantum black holes.????

 

I dont buy your CMB radiation explanation, this according to standard theory has a lot to do with some big explosions in the early universe. ie Supernovae, and possibly QLG Blackholes evaporating due to Hawking radiation and erupting in an even bigger bang than a super novae. 

 

I will read your pdf again taking a bit more time, somethings did not make sense, possibly because your Grammar is worse than mine, or the fact my wife had music playing at full volume whilst I was reading your paper. :)

 

Thanks, that's interesting input. I will give it consideration as I am still somewhat working on the theory and may be till I die I suppose. :)

 

I guess what I'm stating is that Einstein said the vacuum energy could be described as a black hole. Which puts a whole new type of black hole in the physics text books. It's then a continuous density black hole and also space is an infinite set of black holes appearing at all positions in space. If this is correct then only one particle might appear outside the event horizon? I'm still a little unclear on that concept. As I was viewing Hawking radiation as quantum radiation. I will have to look into the virtual particle idea. Anyways I'm still working out the particle physics, I was really more interested in the CMB area. IN the particle area I thought perhaps virtual particles exist potentially at all positions of space in the theory, but real particles require something in addition. I haven't figured out how that works yet.

 

Yeah my CMB idea would be hard to stomach for current theorists. It would define the CMB as radiation that surrounds everything and travels in all directions. That part of the theory predicts that galaxies are created at a time somehow, but not the entire universe at once. If you take the total energy of the black hole and it's radius, then it closely matches a galaxy in nature. And somehow a galaxy would be created at a time.

 

Yeah my grammar is probably terrible. Which is why I did not try to get it published professionally.


Edited by devin553344, 23 December 2018 - 12:36 PM.


#3 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 02:55 PM

You may be barking (up the right tree) or (mad) (as it seems are many on this forum). It might be we exist inside of some kind of Black hole https://en.wikipedia..._hole_cosmology. It might be that fundamental particles are created from entangled quantum fluctuations that become stable around a black(worm) hole. 

 

Your idea using the completely theoretical unproven Unruh effect https://en.wikipedia...ki/Unruh_effect without any supporting physical evidence to explain CMB was a complete new idea to me, it will take time for that to sink in.

 

I am currently interested in the idea that galaxies form from nebulae, which in turn form from fundamental particles appearing from the vacuum at below 2.7 kelvin. Your idea of quantum black/worm holes and quantum Hawking radiation forming particles is interesting.

 

Yeah your grammar is terrible :) But your ideas are not, why not stay around and debate. It is not often I find anyone with worse grammar than me :)

 

Thanks :) I'm currently working on the CMB portion as I feel it may lead to some interesting theory. I was unaware that others pondered that we live in a black hole. To me it would give speed limits of the speed of light due to gravitational escape velocities. But only if it were a continuous energy density, like the vacuum. Really interesting ideas happen in such an environment. Like wave conduction and point-wave support. I need to work on the CMB model so I'll do that for now. The interesting thing about the vacuum energy is that it is an inverse curvature to gravitation, pushing masses away from each other, similar to like charges, so if that can be harnessed somehow then it might open up doors in anti-gravity research.


Edited by devin553344, 23 December 2018 - 02:57 PM.


#4 hazelm

hazelm

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 967 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 03:19 PM

Hi Dean 

 

I am no expert, but having quickly scanned down your paper. 

 

"Point particles based on the Hawking radiation of the vacuum energy (The Electron & Proton): If every point in space may be considered to be a black hole center, then also every point in space may have event horizons directed at it from all directions of space. This Hawking radiation might form a point energy particle. The electron will be a 4 dimensional form of Hawking radiation:"

 

This theory has some parallels with theoretical planck particles, that are theorized to evaporate due to Hawking radiation https://en.wikipedia...Planck_particle

 

There are number of models around theorizing particles are based around micro black holes or wormholes https://en.wikipedia...k_hole_electron , others exist using more dimensions. 

 

The LHC is looking for micro Black holes but has not found any yet https://en.wikipedia...cro_black_hole 

 

Hawking radiation if I understand it correctly supposes 2 quantum fluctuations are separated by a BH's gravity, with one virtual particle disappearing into a black hole and the other escaping the event horizon?

 

Focusing on just the particle side of your pdf are you stating, that primordial particles might be formed when 2 quantum black holes form near 2 quantum fluctuations and separate them in a similar way to Hawking radiation. Your 5th dimension I may be incorrectly assuming to be a wormhole between the 2 quantum black holes.????

 

I dont buy your CMB radiation explanation, this according to standard theory has a lot to do with some big explosions in the early universe. ie Supernovae, and possibly QLG Blackholes evaporating due to Hawking radiation and erupting in an even bigger bang than a super novae. 

 

I will read your pdf again taking a bit more time, somethings did not make sense, possibly because your Grammar is worse than mine, or the fact my wife had music playing at full volume whilst I was reading your paper. :)

:-)  Blame it on the latter.  But, please define OLG.  Or, must I go back and read the whole two threads again while you re-read Dean's post? Thank you.



#5 hazelm

hazelm

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 967 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 03:25 PM

You may be barking (up the right tree) or (mad) (as it seems are many on this forum). It might be we exist inside of some kind of Black hole https://en.wikipedia..._hole_cosmology. It might be that fundamental particles are created from entangled quantum fluctuations that become stable around a black(worm) hole. 

 

Your idea using the completely theoretical unproven Unruh effect https://en.wikipedia...ki/Unruh_effect without any supporting physical evidence to explain CMB was a complete new idea to me, it will take time for that to sink in.

 

I am currently interested in the idea that galaxies form from nebulae, which in turn form from fundamental particles appearing from the vacuum at below 2.7 kelvin. Your idea of quantum black/worm holes and quantum Hawking radiation forming particles is interesting.

 

Yeah your grammar is terrible :) But your ideas are not, why not stay around and debate. It is not often I find anyone with worse grammar than me :)

Enough, already.  Both your grammars are fine.  Take it from the grammar "expert".    :sherlock:


  • Flummoxed likes this

#6 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 05:07 PM

I updated the theory to reflect more proper thermal dynamics in the CMB area which slightly changed the proton equations. I put the file in the original post at the top of this page.



#7 hazelm

hazelm

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 967 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 05:27 PM

I guess olg should be rerad QLG quantum loop gravity https://en.wikipedia...quantum_gravity . When reading this you must keep asking the question where did the original matter come from to form the big black hole that forms the big bang. You will find you are stuck in a loop. 

 

 

 

Me speak English you speak American, mais eu falo muito mas linguas tambem.

 

Thank you.

 

Rwy'n siarad llawer o leithoedd hefyd.  :-)



#8 hazelm

hazelm

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 967 posts

Posted 24 December 2018 - 09:20 AM

I lived in North Wales for a couple of years but have forgotten the language, except the basics. 

 

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

 

I thought you said you were an american, what are you doing speaking welsh ? 

Well, as it says, I speak a lot of languages.  :-) 

 

The end.  Back on topic.  I want to follow (Dean?) (Devin?) and his Cosmological Constant because I just happened to be reading something similar when he posted.  On to the future. 



#9 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 581 posts

Posted 24 December 2018 - 12:49 PM

A pop science page on Poplawskis theories on white holes black holes and ER bridges https://bigthink.com...m-a-white-hole 



#10 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 24 December 2018 - 03:34 PM

A pop science page on Poplawskis theories on white holes black holes and ER bridges https://bigthink.com...m-a-white-hole 

 

Some of your links don't direct to the page you're indicating.



#11 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 25 December 2018 - 02:49 AM

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?


Edited by devin553344, 25 December 2018 - 02:50 AM.


#12 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 25 December 2018 - 06:12 AM

If you google Popolawski Black Holes White Holes arxiv you will have dozens of interesting hits. If you drop Popolawski you will have even more but not always on target.

 

 

 

Yes I have difficulty with that largely arising from a pop science book I read by Eric Lerner on the PLasma Universe some years ago, some of his ideas stuck, even though he is an scientific outcast. 

 

I like your idea on particle creation from the vacuum of space. I have a half baked idea, (that is not original), that nebulae formed from the vacuum of space, at near absolute zero (new as far as I am aware), before collapsing to form stars, becoming hot (preventing further particle creation), and followed by supernovae to form the heavier elements. These nebulae would be formed of entangled fundamental particles, that might expand a bit like the Boomerang Nebulae. Various models around particle black holes have been around for a while. I am looking for one based on a 5 dimensional space quantum fluctuations and wormholes(entanglement)  . Because I also am very interested in Eric Verlindes ideas on gravity being caused by entanglement of particles via a 5th dimension. This also attempts to explains dark energy and does not need dark matter to how the universe works. This appears to be one of the leading alternatives to EFE and has passed a lot of tests.

 

The inflationary universe by Guth and Linde does not explain why black holes exist at the outer edges of the visible universe or whats going on in the Boomerang nebulae.

 

There is plenty left for enthusiasts to think about.

 

Seasons Greetings.

 

Thanks and merry Christmas :) I really liked your link of https://en.wikipedia..._hole_cosmology

 

I think it's interesting that others have also believed that the vacuum is a black hole. It makes sense out of the speed of light and wave conduction and virtual particles, etc. When I was first studying gravity and trying to understand it I kept bumping into the black hole nature of gravitation. G/c^2 is the black hole mass per meter for any black hole. I tried to fight it and theorize an electromagnetic definition, and kept failing miserably. The cosmology constant made sense of it all for me. And it appears to describe a black hole concept. Anyways, I have to get back to my ideas on the CMB, maybe they're naive, but for some reason I think there's a connection there and I can't seem to shake the off the idea yet.



#13 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 25 December 2018 - 08:10 AM

I believe I've figured out the CMB section and put a description of what is happening mechanically in the CMB section of the theory. It's in the second theory in the original post.

 

Thanks,

 

Devin



#14 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 25 December 2018 - 10:24 AM

Where are your equations derived. You only show end results, but not where the equations come from. 

 

Black holes are assumed to have MASS at the centre, and possibly an ER bridge worm hole.

Particles can be entangled via an EPR bridge which may be equivalent to an ER bridge. 

 

An ER/EPR bridge and space time are what space is made of. Quantum fluctuations form according to the HUP in space time. If a quantum fluctuation and quantum EPR bridge was to form they might form a particle and antiparticle. At zero kelvin in a zero energy universe these particles might become permanent.

 

Would your description be better if instead of

 

" If every point in space may be considered to be a black hole center, then also every point in space may have event horizons directed at it from all directions of space. This Hawking radiation might form a point energy particle. The electron and proton/neutron will be 4 dimensional forms of Hawking radiation"

 

" If every point in space may be considered to be connected to every other, via a 5th dimension/wormhole (see holographic universe). Then pin pricks forming in space time may via Hawking radiation might form entangled point energy particles".

 

Your sentence "The electron and proton/neutron will be 4 dimensional forms of Hawking radiation" just for clarification does your 4 dimensions include time.?

 

Thanks, I'm still working on the theory, so the descriptions are a little crude, but believe it is finished enough to share it. Your descriptions would probably be better than what I've come up with. The 4 dimensional and 5 dimensional Planck solution I've derived describe n-sphere's which are surface areas, time is not included in dimensional n-spheres. I'm not sure time dilation would happen for the vacuum energy since its a gravitational curvature that has no mass. And if it did it would be very tiny time dilation really. And I really don't believe the metric interpretations that physicists have come up with in predicting the inside of the black hole. I kinda think mass might be required for it to become relativistic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere for n-spheres, scroll down and it depicts what the n-sphere equations are for different dimensional surfaces and volumes.

 

The reason why I don't believe the current metric solutions to black holes is that I believe one would have to remove any external mass from the radius in calculating any gravitational effects. And then a black hole that's mass has the Schwarzschild radius that matches it's mass radius with a consistent mass density would find that the escape velocity would be c^2 throughout the entire black hole, even at its center. So no worm holes or singularities. Any mass outside the radius would pull outward on the position, such that if I was in the center of the mass of a black hole it would pull my body apart similar to the vacuum black hole concept for dark energy. Which is similar I think to why Einstein proposed the idea for the cosmological constant in the first place. My lungs would explode in space vacuum due to the gravitation of the vacuum black hole:) In other words they used a point to point force idea and tried to apply it to a density idea and so it doesn't make any sense. Like I said, you can't simply divide rs/r in the metric it leads to some incorrect math (where rs is the Schwarzschild radius).

 

The equations depict gravitational accelerations of the vacuum energy mostly in the hawking radiation which is what c^2/rvac and (16 pi^2 c^2)/rvac represent. I could have put the Gm/r^2 but I thought it would be easier to put c^2/rvac. Hopefully that isn't confusing. Or maybe it is?

 

It's pretty easy physics so I thought it didn't necessitate derivations. Maybe I was wrong? But I have not come up with any new theory, just explaining the effects and theories of others and explaining how they could relate to particle physics, charge, quantum, and CMB. So to see derivations perhaps it would be better to go to the n-sphere, Hawking radiation, Unruh effect, etc wikipedia pages. I'm not creating new math. Just connecting the dots in a way that clearly calculates and fairly precisely calculates. The CMB calc matches the temperature given on wikipedia to 4 places of accuracy and it matches the cubic evaporation principle described by Stephen Hawking: https://en.wikipedia...wave_background & https://en.wikipedia...wking_radiation

 

Plus I didn't want to clutter up the theory with derivations. I thought it would be easier to read without simple derivations. For instance I'm using both c^2/r and 16 pi^2 c^2/r. I could have explained that while there is a velocity outward from the center that is c, then there must be a circular velocity of 2 pi c also that might be considered, such that an electron is different from the proton, The electron represents a point, and the proton a sphere.


Edited by devin553344, 25 December 2018 - 11:56 AM.


#15 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 25 December 2018 - 07:06 PM

Its a day off, and I have eaten too much :(

 

Time is a funny thing, it flows at different rates dependent on gravity this is a FACT.

Gravity may be dependent on entanglement, which is dependent on space with n? dimensions. https://medium.com/t...nt-d5d3dc850933

Time is(most likely (maybe (a little bit))) emergent from space time and is a quantum effect, as is gravity.

 

If one was to take the smallest conceivable packet of energy connected to a 5th dimension EPR bridge and observe the effects, then take a large number of similar particles that make up several solar masses connected to a 5th dimension via a ER bridge. This connection might appear as a single wormhole, rather than large numbers of individual wormholes. Looking at a black hole, with an event horizon, is the event horizon any different to a particle with quarks and anti quarks spinning around it falling in towards a worm hole.  Is the strong nuclear force different to what would be seen at a singularity of black hole. 

 

You need to produce the math behind your equations, for folk to read, understand then discuss, otherwise you are hoping for belief without evidence. If you post a few a few links to where the equations are derived from might be useful.  

 

I now might drink too much :)

 

Here for starters is the effects and physics I've incorporated. I will work on the derivations for readers now. I kinda worked it out in my mind instead of on paper.

 

3/5kqq/r was something I borrowed from the assembly of a charge with continuous field density from infinity. It relates to the continuous energy of the vacuum. They quoted it on the classic electron charge radius in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia...electron_radius

 

Hawking radiation, you can read where the time is basically t=mc^2/3P, where t is the time of evaporation, m is the total mass of the black hole, P is the power of Hawking radiation: https://en.wikipedia...wking_radiation

 

The Unruh effect is here and appears that it might be interpreted as to relate to acceleration of waves to or from the speed of light with 2 pi c: https://en.wikipedia...ki/Unruh_effect

 

N-spheres again are located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere

 

Particle entropy is discussed on this page and relates the kT ln(2). I read on another page, can't remember the topic in wikipedia at the moment, that particles use kT ln(2), it was stating that 1 bit was the loss. And on Hawking radiation page the Unruh effect is used to equate directly to kT for the Stephan Boltzmann law. But the following page also discusses it: https://en.wikipedia...ormation_theory

https://en.wikipedia...n–Boltzmann_law

 

As far as proving the equations relate to reality. I think that's why it's a theory and not fact until experimentally proven. But I can derive more on my paper for a better idea of why I'm suggesting the theory.

 

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. Einsteins addition of the cosmological constant clearly indicates that he originally considered the latter and not in the metric solutions they came up with for his field equations. He called the cosmological constant his biggest mistake and now their saying it's correct if used as a negative value instead of positive. Einsteins constant suggested, just as a persons mass would be pulled apart in all directions outward, so does the galaxies in the universe expand. This concept defies the wormhole ideas and the metric ideas currently in acceptance.

 

Another interesting fact is that if you summed all the charge that is positive and negative that makes up the protons, neutrons and electrons in the planet earth and then used the equation E=mc^2=Kq1q2/r where r is the radius of the earth, then you will find that the electromagnetic mass of the planet earth forms a black hole. It is a massive amount of mass. But of course we find a small time dilation and acceleration. This indicates that possibly the charge is void when bound to another charge, like the electron to proton appears to reduce from the mass of the hydrogen atom.

 

Thanks,

 

Devin


Edited by devin553344, 26 December 2018 - 06:58 AM.


#16 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 26 December 2018 - 08:05 AM

In attempting to derive the equations I found that one might assume a common concept for the equations I supplied, namely the electron, proton, CMB.

 

I updated the second pdf file in the original post.

 

The change to the CMB equation now reflects the black hole entropy and unifies my equations. I'm a little confused as to whether I applied the entropy correctly. I found the entropy to be kA/4l^2 which is from this wikipedia page on Stephen Hawking: https://en.wikipedia..._thermodynamics

 

Thanks,

 

Devin


Edited by devin553344, 26 December 2018 - 08:59 AM.


#17 devin553344

devin553344

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 27 December 2018 - 07:15 AM

I made another modification to the CMB area of the theory and uploaded it to the second file of the original post. It removes the fine structure from the idea and relates the Hawking radiation of the CMB temperature energy to a Poynting vector. 





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Hawking radiation, Unruh Effect, Cosmological constant, Black hole