"Binding Energy", Gauge Bosons, Galaxies, and Time

[kmarinas86]

Abstract

 

The hypothesis proposed in this article assumes modification of the function for gravitational time dilation, [math]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}}[/math]. In this hypothesis, [math]\frac{2GM}{rc^2}[/math] is replaced by [math]\frac{binding\ energy}{rest\ energy}[/math]. The result that follows from this is that galaxies have the same sign of binding energy as quarks.

 

Definition of Binding Energy

 

Before we go further, we must define binding energy in a fundamental way. The "binding energy" described in this article is the net energy of gauge bosons which is released during the formation of the object being considered. Conversely, a negative binding energy represents the net energy of gauge bosons which is absorbed during the formation. Further we may assume that the binding energy to be considered is directly related to the binding energy of an atomic nucleus in that it involves mass defect. In this interpretation, we assume that [math](m_{parts}-m_{whole})*c^2[/math] is the binding energy where [math]m_{parts}[/math] is the total mass of matter taken minutest piece by minutest piece (i.e. when they are not interacting or when they are distantly seperated), where [math]m_{whole}[/math] is the mass of the "whole" matter (i.e. when these minutest pieces are together), and where [math]c^2[/math] is the potential. By defining binding energy in this way, we make the two following things equal: the total binding energy of the system and the net energy of the gauge bosons released from the system during formation.

 

Mathematical result from these assumptions

 

Established formula:

 

[math]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-2GM/rc^2}}[/math]

 

Proposed formula:

 

[math]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\left(m_{parts}-m_{whole}\right)c^2}{m_{parts} c^2}}}[/math]

 

Rearranging the formula:

 

[math]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2=1-\frac{\left(m_{parts}-m_{whole}\right)c^2}{m_{parts} c^2}[/math]

 

[math]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2=1-\frac{\left(m_{parts}-m_{whole}\right)}{m_{parts}}[/math]

 

[math]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2=1+\frac{\left(m_{whole}-m_{parts}\right)}{m_{parts}}[/math]

 

[math]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2=1+\frac{m_{whole}}{m_{parts}}-1[/math]

 

[math]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2=\frac{m_{whole}}{m_{parts}}[/math]

 

This implies that:

 

[math]dt>d\tau[/math] as long as [math]m_{parts}>m_{whole}[/math], and that:

 

[math]dt<d\tau[/math] as long as [math]m_{parts}<m_{whole}[/math].

 

This leads to two categories of things:

 

1) If the mass of the whole is less (not greater) than the mass of the parts, then the objects will experience a time dilation, and also, the fraction of binding energy to rest energy is positive.

 

2) If the mass of the whole is greater (not less) than the mass of the parts, then the objects will experience a time acceleration, and also, the fraction of binding energy to rest energy is negative.

 

The first category corresponds to things whose formation (in net) has added a number of gauge bosons to free space (e.g. stars, pulsars, and white dwarfs).

 

The second category corresponds to things whose formation (in net) had subtracted a number of gauge bosons from free space (e.g. quarks, leptons, and other matter formed during the "cosmic" dark ages).

 

Where does the formation of a galaxy fit in? It could be said that galaxies have formed before stars have shined among them. If they were simply lanes and nodes of gassy light elements scattered sparsely across space and time it is concievable that much of the radiation they absorbed would not be released just as fast, provided that temperature outside them was greater. This is given if the result of radiation intake leads to a net increase in the angular momentum of the cosmic gas (i.e. more angular momentum leaves free space and enters into the realm of matter).

 

We see the opposite in the formation of stars, which occurs in a vastly different thermal enviroment. When stars form, the temperature outside is less than the temperature within. Naturally, heat energy from stars will leave the mass from which is produced and into free space. The only way a good fraction of that radiation could be absorbed is for there to be a good amount of regions at some place(s) and time(s) where the "cosmic" dark age reigns, otherwise, galaxies may only continue to form by mergers. Gamma rays with high enough energy can cause the formation of subatomic particles in regions exhibiting properties which were more dominant in the cosmic "dark age".

 

Possible experiments

 

1) The formula considered clearly suggests a different function for gravitational time dilation, which will have measurable effects in experimentation if true. The binding energy to be considered is not gravitational binding energy, but rather the change in radiation energy in free space that occurs due to the formation of the object whose time dilation is being considered. It is this special kind of binding energy divided by rest energy which is proposed to replace the role of [math]\frac{2GM}{rc^2}[/math] in the equation [math]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-2GM/rc^2}}[/math].

 

2) By determining the net amount of radiation that a galaxy has absorbed since the original formation of the galaxies of the "dark ages" from which it is ultimately derived, one may make predictions to test so as to see if the ratio of "observed + unseen mass" to observed mass is in line with the predicted binding energy / rest energy (per the definition of binding energy given at the throughout this paper).

[GAHD]

and what kind of experiment, specificly, would you propose to get this needed data?

[kmarinas86]

and what kind of experiment, specificly, would you propose to get this needed data?

 

Possible experiments

 

1) The formula considered clearly suggests a different function for gravitational time dilation, which will have measurable effects in experimentation if true. The binding energy to be considered is not gravitational binding energy, but rather the change in radiation energy in free space that occurs due to the formation of the object whose time dilation is being considered. It is this special kind of binding energy divided by rest energy which is proposed to replace the role of [math]\frac{2GM}{rc^2}[/math] in the equation [math]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-2GM/rc^2}}[/math].

 

One way would be to prove a relationship between gravity, mass, and the net energy of gauge bosons that have been emitted. If one considers the possibility of gravitational waves as gauge bosons of gravitational energy, as well as electromagnetic energy such as photons, one has to show that gravitational waves, or anything bearing a similar resemblance leads to an observable mass defect. Per the definition given in the opening post (OP), if the precise change in mass defect is known, the mutiplicative factor by which the [math]\frac{m_{parts}}{m_{parts}-mass\ defect}[/math] has changed should be exactly the square of the mutiplicative factor by which the gravitational time dilation has increased. No more, and no less. The logic can also work in reverse by determining the initial and final gravitational time dilation first then predicting the final mass defect from the original values.

 

I am not a expert in observational astronomy, so I can't tell you how to build a device that will take such measurements.

 

2) By determining the net amount of radiation that a galaxy has absorbed since the original formation of the galaxies of the "dark ages" from which it is ultimately derived, one may make predictions to test so as to see if the ratio of "observed + unseen mass" to observed mass is in line with the predicted binding energy / rest energy (per the definition of binding energy given at the throughout this paper).

 

This requires better and more refined observations of the distant universe where the images portray the formation of galaxies before stars. Basically the net radiation absorbed by the galaxies during their ongoing formation will determine the amount of dark matter which they possess (this includes gravitational waves if necessary). As galaxies radiate more and more, they should lose the appearance of dark matter over time. Since the binding energy of elipticals is relatively high, a smaller mass "addendum" should be indicated by having net gauge boson absorption close 0 over the course of its real life. That is to say the energy they've absorbed over the course of their life is comparable to the energy they've emitted over the course of their life. Others might even have "less than no dark matter", depending on how "very fast" they have radiated. This has to be determined cosmologically and the fulfillment of the predictions will depend on the cosmological model used to determine how much energy a galaxy's parts have absorbed and emitted over the course of the life of its parts.

[kmarinas86]

Here is some symmetry I found. Consider three types:

 

Type -1) [math]m_{whole}<m_{parts}[/math] nuclei, planets, stars, white dwarfs, pulsars

Type 0) [math]m_{whole}=m_{parts}[/math] "things" which do not weigh more than the sum of thier parts (e.g. 1 gram plastic "teddy bear" weights)

Type 1) [math]m_{whole}>m_{parts}[/math] hadrons, galaxies

 

Now time for some more "subjective" reasoning :shrug:

 

-1) Product of compression / The bubbles have mass / Emits more light than it absorbs during formation (analogue: see sea salt evaporation)

0) Product of layers of embedded compression and large scale rarefraction (see surface tension) / Emits as much light as it absorbs if it is not cooling

1) Product of rarefaction / The bubbles are voided / Absorbs more light than it emits during formation (analogue: see sponge expansion)

 

1) hadrons (within: asymptotic freedom)

-1) nuclei (within: "bumper car(s)")

0) "things" (within: layer(s))

-1) planets, stars, white dwarfs, pulsars (within: "tokyo waterpark")

1) galaxies (within: countless stellar masses passing by each other)

 

Type -1) Politicians, Dictators (fashion and non-fashion), Central Planners

Type 0) Normal Populace

Type 1) Engineers, Scientists (nuclear and non-nuclear)

 

Type -1) Commercial Framework

Type 0) Residential Framework

Type 1) Industrial Framework

 

Type -1) (G)overnment purchases

Type 0) ©onsumption

Type 1) (I)nvestment

 

Enough subjective reasoning ;)