You are on page 1of 329

QUINTA ESSENTIA

A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering

PART 2
“ELECTRO-GRAVI-MAGNETICS”
(EGM)
“To my sister”: from Ricc
“To Mike”: from Geoff
RESEARCH NOTES
Particle-Physics Key Words: Balmer Series, Bohr Radius, Buckingham Π Theory, Casimir Force,
ElectroMagnetics, equivalence principle, Euler’s Constant, Fourier series, Fundamental Particles,
General Relativity, Gravity, Harmonics, Hydrogen Spectrum, Newtonian Mechanics, ParticlePhysics, Physical Modelling, Planck Scale, Polarisable Vacuum, Quantum Mechanics, Zero-PointField.
Cosmology Key Words: Big-Bang, CMBR, Cosmological Evolution / Expansion / History /
Inflation, Dark Energy / Matter, Gravitation, Hubble constant.

2nd Edition
Project Initiated: April 15, 2007
Project Completed: December 3, 2007
Revised: Thursday, 24 November 2011
RICCARDO C. STORTI1 & GEOFFREY S. DIEMER

www.deltagroupengineering.com
1

rstorti@gmail.com
© Copyright 2011: Delta Group Engineering (dgE): All rights reserved.

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Synopsis
“One does not find gold prospecting in a field filled with miners. One must
break new ground, not perpetually overturn familiar soil.”
• Riccardo C. Storti
Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering (the series), describes the
development of a mathematical method termed “Electro-Gravi-Magnetics” (EGM); so named
because it facilitates the representation of gravitational fields in ElectroMagnetic (EM) terms. EGM
examines, based upon standard engineering principles, whether it might be possible to modify the
gravitational force acting on a test object explicitly utilising EM energy.
The EGM method is rooted within the foundations of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum
Mechanics (QM). GR states that matter generates “curvature” within the fabric of space-time
surrounding it. As objects pass through regions of curved space, the spatial curvature determines
their motion, resulting in what we perceive to be “gravity”. However, it must be noted that spacetime “curvature” is a physically meaningless term. It is a mathematical contrivance acting to
describe (not explain) the physical phenomenon we call gravity.
EGM presumes mass-energy must do “work” on the space-time manifold in order to
generate “curvature”, such that instead of being “curved”, space-time becomes “refractive” in the
presence of matter. It describes gravity as a by-product of EM exchange2 between matter and the
space-time manifold surrounding it, resulting in the formation of radial energy density gradients.
Objects passing through these gradients behave in precisely the same manner as predicted by GR.
The key difference between GR and EGM, however, is that EGM explicitly describes why spacetime physically becomes refractive in the presence of matter; GR does not.
The EGM construct is an engineering tool producing astonishing results, revealing the EM
architecture of gravitational fields and unveiling a universal principle applicable from the
subatomic scale to the Cosmological. It is the authors’ sincere hope that the reader will learn and
utilise the EGM method in their own research.
Author contribution,
• Geoffrey S. Diemer and Riccardo C. Storti: Synopsis, Preface, Ch. 1-2.6.
• Riccardo C. Storti: Ch. 2.7-9 + Appendices.

2

i.e. in accordance with the principles of QM.
3

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Preface
“My advice to those who wish to learn the art of scientific prophesy is not to
rely on abstract reason, but to decipher the secret language of Nature from
Nature’s documents: the facts of experience.”
• Max Born
Humanity teeters on the brink of profound scientific developments. We approach a level of
technological advancement exposing unexplored opportunities to solve pressing global crises. Our
breadth of knowledge continues to expand; we are explorers evolving beyond our bounds. Our
destiny is amongst the stars and our future depends upon overcoming two formidable technological
hurdles: mastering the force of gravity and surpassing the speed of light.
In 1968, a Russian Physicist and winner of the 1975 Nobel Peace Prize, Andrei Sakharov,
proposed a hypothesis for the Quantum-ElectroMagnetic origin of gravity and inertia3. Similar ideas
introduced by Harold Wilson and Robert Dicke in the 1920’s and 1950’s respectively, have
spawned a contemporary movement offering an alternative to the apparently insurmountable limits
of interstellar travel. Their ideas rest upon the most fundamental yet ineffable entity in the Universe
(i.e. light).
Light is energy – ElectroMagnetic (EM) radiation, which may be partitioned into units
called “Photons” simultaneously possessing particulate and sinusoidal characteristics. General
Relativity (GR)4 is derived from the manner in which light propagates through space. QuantumElectroDynamics (QED) describes the elegant and indissoluble dance of light and matter defining
the material world. The Photon also establishes the basis for an optical model of gravity, first
described by Sir Isaac Newton centuries ago. This optical model has a contemporary representative;
the “Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Representation of GR” (i.e. the PV model).
The vacuum of space is an effervescent matrix of energy based upon the principles of
Quantum Mechanics (QM) such that light may be conceptualised as a fluctuation in the fabric of
space-time. When we consider space to be composed of light and not simply a void through which
it transits, it becomes possible to pinpoint the origin of gravitational and inertial forces on matter,
unifying the ostensibly disparate forces of gravity and ElectroMagnetism. QM comes into sharp
focus and the baffling consequences of GR become intuitive and comprehensible. This new
perspective also suggests that the seemingly immutable forces of gravity and inertia might
eventually be subject to manipulation such that supraluminal propulsion systems (i.e. “warp-drive”)
might be feasible!
Herein describes the development of a mathematical method; Electro-Gravi-Magnetics
(EGM). It provides a framework for representing the PV model in measurable, quantifiable terms,
allowing researchers to perform highly accurate calculations and predictions. It has been applied to
determine experimentally verified properties of matter to a level of accuracy substantially beyond
the capabilities of the Standard Model (SM) of Particle-Physics and Cosmology, yielding
astonishing conclusions.
EGM characterises how energy is distributed throughout the Cosmos in terms of a matterspace-time system. From this perspective, matter is not merely floating inertly in the vacuum of
empty space; rather it exists as an inextricable part of the space it inhabits. When EGM methods are
applied to represent the PV model, it is not only possible to validate GR in a manner fully
incorporating QM and ElectroMagnetism, but also gain a heuristic understanding of what
Relativistic and Quantum Mechanics represent physically.
The Scientist’s natural ally is reduction; “a generalised phenomenon” is decomposed into its
basic constituents. An engineer’s natural ally introduces the opposing perspective by integrating
3

Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation. A.D. Sakharov. 1967.
{Reprinted in Sov. Phys. Usp. 34 (1991) 394 [Usp. Fiz. Nauk 161 (1991) No. 5 64-66]}.
4
A geometric interpretation of gravity and space-time.
5

www.deltagroupengineering.com

basic principles and formulating a systemic solution congruent with experimental observation.
Utilising engineering logic, matter and space are dynamic, interdependent and function in a
feedback system of interactions such that “the phenomenon” may be “reverse-engineered”.
In our era, professional science has been corrupted by conceit and wizardry. We have
developed cumbersome and un-testable theories, conjuring upwards of twenty dimensions and an
infinite array of simultaneous realities in an attempt to explain basic universal principles. Our
conceit grows from the belief that the more baroque and complicated a theory is, the more accurate
it must be.
The hallmark of genius is “the ability to make your thoughts reality”. This is achieved by the
articulation of unique vision and the implementation of unconventional reasoning in an elegant
manner. Genius cannot be obtained by regurgitation of established doctrine. Sir Isaac Newton and
Albert Einstein laboured great works, not because they recited the toil of those whom preceded
them, but because they presented novel concepts unveiling great truths of Nature.
The famed statistician George Box once wrote: “essentially, all models are wrong, but some
are useful”5. The guiding principle underlying the work presented herein is a desire to represent
gravity, not only philosophically, intuitively and elegantly, but in useful terms. EGM does not
intend to imply that GR (or any other theory) is wrong, only that there may be an alternative way to
interpret Nature. In order to facilitate technological progress in gravity control or supraluminal
travel, we must reconstruct GR in a format promoting invention. EGM provides a tool to model the
dynamics of matter-space-time interactions solely in the language of EM radiation, offering
engineering potential.
This text, Part Two of the “Quinta Essentia” series, is a summarised presentation of the key
results and findings of Parts Three and Four. The EGM method generates new predictions and
confirms well-established experimental observations, particularly in the fields of Particle-Physics
and Cosmology. It is our explicit hope that the material presented in the “Quinta Essentia” series,
will inspire new ideas and experiments dealing directly with matter-space-time modification, by
either applying EGM methods or through the development of one’s own approach.
Note: references to “Quinta Essentia – Part 3 and 4” are denoted by QE3 and QE4 respectively.

5

Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley, New York (1987) pp. 424. George E.P.
Box and Norman R. Draper.
6

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Scientific Achievements
The physical characteristics reported herein (derived from 1st principles based upon a single
paradigm) may be articulated as follows (many of which are experimentally verified or implied),
“Quinta Essentia – Part 3” (QE3)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The spectral quantisation of gravity.
The application of the spectral quantisation of gravity to Metric Engineering principles.
The experimentally implicit validation of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity.
The formulation of the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) Spectrum.
The experimentally implicit validation of the EGM Spectrum by the calculation of highly
precise physically verified fundamental particle properties.
6. The Quasi-Unification of Particle-Physics illustrating that all fundamental particles may be
described as harmonic multiples of each other.
7. The Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) equilibrium radius.
8. The experimental Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of the Proton.
9. The classical RMS charge radius of the Proton.
10. The experimental Proton Electric Radius.
11. The experimental Proton Magnetic Radius.
12. The experimental Mean Square (MS) charge radius of the Neutron.
13. The conversion of the conventional representation of the experimental Neutron “MS” charge
radius to a more intuitively meaningful positive form.
14. The experimental Neutron Magnetic Radius.
15. The precise experimental graphical properties of the Neutron charge distribution.
16. The experimental mass-energies and radii of all Quarks and Bosons consistent with the
Particle Data Group (PDG) and ZEUS Collaboration (ZC).
17. The charge radii of all Neutrino’s, consistent with the interpretation of experimental data
from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO).
18. The experimental mass-energy of the Top Quark as defined by the D-Zero Collaboration
(D0C) based upon the observation of Top events.
19. The Photon mass-energy threshold consistent with PDG interpretation of experimental
evidence.
20. The Photon and Graviton mass-energies and radii consistent with Quantum Mechanical
(QM) expectations.
21. The derivation of the Fine Structure Constant “α” in terms of Electron and Proton radii.
22. The derivation of “α” in terms of Neutron, Muon and Tau radii.
23. The derivation of the Casimir Force based upon the spectral quantisation of gravity.
24. The optimisation of an energy / gravitational experiment associated with the Casimir Force.
25. An experimentally implicit definition of the Planck Scale.
26. An experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr Radius.
27. The experimental Hydrogen atom emission / absorption spectrum (Balmer Series).
28. The prediction of three new Leptons and associated Neutrino's.
29. The prediction of two new Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB’s).
30. A physically implicit value and limit for “π” at the “QM” level – subject to uncertainty
principles.
31. A physically implicit value and limit for the Euler-Mascheroni Constant “γ” at the “QM”
level – subject to uncertainty principles.
32. The formulation of a single mathematical algorithm incorporating (1 - 31).

7

www.deltagroupengineering.com

“Quinta Essentia – Part 4” (QE4)

Astro-Physics
33. Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” (SBH) mass and radius.
34. Derivation of maximum permissible energy density.
35. Derivation of the harmonic mode and frequency characteristics and profiles of a SBH.
36. Derivation of the SBH singularity radius.

Cosmology
• General
37. Derivation of the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter.
38. Derivation of the present Cosmological age.
39. Derivation of the present Cosmological size.
40. Derivation of the total Cosmological mass.
41. Derivation of the present Cosmological mass-density.
• Hubble constant
42. Derivation of the Hubble constant at the instant of the “Big-Bang”.
43. Derivation of the maximum Hubble constant since the “Big-Bang”.
44. Derivation of the present Hubble constant within experimental tolerance.
45. Derivation of the Hubble constant in the time domain.
46. Derivation of the rates of change of the Hubble constant in the time domain.
• Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature
47. Derivation of the CMBR temperature at the instant of the “Big-Bang”.
48. Derivation of the maximum Cosmological temperature since the “Big-Bang”.
49. Derivation of the present CMBR temperature within experimental tolerance.
50. Derivation of the CMBR temperature in the time domain.
51. Derivation of the rates of change of the CMBR temperature in the time domain.
• Evolutionary processes
52. Categorisation of the Cosmological evolution process into two regimes: comprised of
four distinct periods.
53. Determination of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on the Hubble constant and
CMBR temperature.
54. Articulation of the precise history of the Universe.
• Cosmological constant
55. Experimentally implicit derivation of the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) energy density
threshold, yielding an insight into the Cosmological constant.

Particle-Physics
56. Derivation of the Photon and Graviton mass-energies lower limit.
57. Derivation of the Photon and Graviton Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge radii lower limit.
58. Derivation of the Photon charge threshold.
59. Derivation of the Photon charge upper and lower limits.

“Quinta Essentia – Part 2” (QE2)
60. Derivation of experimentally implicit values of the deceleration parameter and
Cosmological constant.
Note: where possible, calculated results have been compared to physical measurement. Cognisant
of experimental uncertainty, key predictions herein may be considered to be exact.
8

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Table of Contents
Synopsis ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Preface ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Scientific Achievements ................................................................................................................ 7
1

Quinta Essentia ................................................................................................................... 23

1.1
The aether ......................................................................................................................... 23
1.1.1
The void ................................................................................................................... 23
1.1.2
The platonic solids.................................................................................................... 24
1.1.3
The laws of motion................................................................................................... 26
1.1.4
The luminiferous aether............................................................................................ 27
1.1.5
Michelson and Morely.............................................................................................. 29
1.1.6
Space-Time .............................................................................................................. 30
1.1.7
The Casimir Effect ................................................................................................... 30
1.2

Inertia................................................................................................................................ 32

1.3

Material waves .................................................................................................................. 33

1.4

Equilibration and virtual reality ......................................................................................... 33

1.5

QVIH ................................................................................................................................ 34

1.6

Bridging the gaps .............................................................................................................. 35

1.7
The Polarisable Vacuum.................................................................................................... 36
1.7.1
Blind-sighted ............................................................................................................ 36
1.7.2
Optical gravity.......................................................................................................... 36
1.7.3
Shaping the lens ....................................................................................................... 37
1.7.4
Asymmetry, equilibrium and “KPV”.......................................................................... 38
1.7.5
Conflux .................................................................................................................... 38
2

Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) ........................................................................................ 41

2.1

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 41

2.2

Similitude.......................................................................................................................... 41

2.3

Precepts and principles ...................................................................................................... 42

2.4

Gravity .............................................................................................................................. 43

2.5

Elementary particles .......................................................................................................... 47

2.6

Cosmology ........................................................................................................................ 48

2.7
Technical summary ........................................................................................................... 51
2.7.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 51
2.7.2
The QV spectrum ..................................................................................................... 53
9

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.7.3
2.7.4
2.7.5
2.7.6
2.7.7
2.7.8
2.7.9
2.7.10
2.7.11
2.7.12
2.7.13
2.7.14
2.8
3

The EGM spectrum .................................................................................................. 53
The ZPF spectrum .................................................................................................... 53
The PV spectrum ...................................................................................................... 54
The EGM, PV and ZPF spectra................................................................................. 56
The Casimir Effect ................................................................................................... 56
Comparative spectra ................................................................................................. 57
Characterisation of the gravitational spectrum .......................................................... 61
Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” characteristics ..... 62
Fundamental Cosmology .......................................................................................... 62
Advanced Cosmology............................................................................................... 62
Gravitational Cosmology.......................................................................................... 63
Particle Cosmology .................................................................................................. 63

Key point summary ........................................................................................................... 63
The PV Model of Gravity.................................................................................................... 65

3.1

Synopsis ............................................................................................................................ 65

3.2

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 65

3.3

Precepts and principles ...................................................................................................... 65

3.4

ZPF transformations .......................................................................................................... 66

3.5

PV transformations............................................................................................................ 67

3.6
The Schwarzschild solution ............................................................................................... 69
3.6.1
Special note .............................................................................................................. 69
3.6.2
Abstract.................................................................................................................... 69
3.6.3
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 69
3.6.4
“KPV” ....................................................................................................................... 69
3.6.5
“F(KPV)”................................................................................................................... 70
3.6.6
“LD(KPV)”................................................................................................................. 70
3.6.7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 71
3.7
The Reissner-Nordstrom solution ...................................................................................... 71
3.7.1
Special note .............................................................................................................. 71
3.7.2
Abstract.................................................................................................................... 71
3.7.3
“LD(KPV)”................................................................................................................. 71
3.7.4
“ψ1,2”........................................................................................................................ 71
3.7.5
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 72
3.8
The generalised PV equations of motion............................................................................ 73
3.8.1
Special note .............................................................................................................. 73
3.8.2
Abstract.................................................................................................................... 73
3.8.3
Time-independent solutions...................................................................................... 73
3.8.4
Co-ordinate systems ................................................................................................. 73
3.8.4.1 Cartesian................................................................................................................ 73
3.8.4.2 Spherical................................................................................................................ 73
3.8.4.3 Cylindrical ............................................................................................................. 74
3.8.5
“KL” ......................................................................................................................... 74
3.8.6
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 74
10

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4

The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles ............................................................ 75

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 75
4.1

Harmonic representation of gravitational acceleration........................................................ 76

4.2

Poynting Vector “Sω” ........................................................................................................ 78

4.3

The size of the Proton, Neutron and Electron (radii: “rπ”, “rν”, “rε”) .................................. 79

4.4
The harmonic representation of fundamental particles ....................................................... 81
4.4.1
Establishing the foundations ..................................................................................... 81
4.4.2
Improving accuracy .................................................................................................. 81
4.4.3
Formulating an hypothesis........................................................................................ 82
4.4.4
Identifying a mathematical pattern............................................................................ 82
4.4.5
Results...................................................................................................................... 83
4.4.5.1 Harmonic evidence of unification .......................................................................... 83
4.4.5.2 Recent developments ............................................................................................. 84
4.4.5.2.1 PDG mass-energy ranges ................................................................................. 84
4.4.5.2.2 Electron Neutrino and Up / Down / Bottom Quark mass................................... 85
4.4.5.2.3 Top Quark mass ............................................................................................... 85
4.4.5.2.3.1 The dilemma ............................................................................................. 85
4.4.5.2.3.2 The resolution ........................................................................................... 85
4.4.6
Discussion ................................................................................................................ 86
4.4.6.1 Experimental evidence of unification ..................................................................... 86
4.4.6.2 The answers to some important questions............................................................... 87
4.4.6.2.1 What causes harmonic patterns to form? .......................................................... 87
4.4.6.2.1.1 ZPF equilibrium ........................................................................................ 87
4.4.6.2.1.2 Inherent quantum characteristics................................................................ 87
4.4.6.2.2 Why haven’t the “new” particles been experimentally detected? ...................... 88
4.4.6.2.3 Why can all fundamental particles be described in harmonic terms?................. 88
4.4.6.2.4 Why is EGM a method and not a theory? ......................................................... 89
4.4.6.2.5 What would one need to do, in order to disprove EGM?................................... 89
4.4.6.2.6 Why does EGM produce current and not constituent Quark masses? ................ 89
4.4.6.2.7 Why does EGM yield only the three observed families?................................... 89
4.5

What may the periodic table of elementary particles look like under EGM?....................... 90

4.6

Graphical representation of fundamental particles under EGM .......................................... 91

4.7

Concluding remarks........................................................................................................... 92

5

The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos .............................................................................. 93

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 93
5.1

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 94

5.2
Objectives and scope ......................................................................................................... 95
5.2.1
What is derived?....................................................................................................... 95
5.2.2
How is it achieved? .................................................................................................. 95
5.3

Derivation process............................................................................................................. 95
11

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4

Hubble constant “HU”............................................................................................... 95
CMBR temperature “TU”.......................................................................................... 96
“HU → HU2, TU → TU2 → TU3”................................................................................. 97
Rate of change “dHdt”............................................................................................... 99

5.4
Sample results ................................................................................................................. 100
5.4.1
Numerical evaluation and analysis.......................................................................... 100
5.4.1.1 Cosmological properties....................................................................................... 100
5.4.1.2 Significant temporal ordinates.............................................................................. 102
5.4.2
Graphical evaluation and analysis........................................................................... 103
5.4.2.1 Average Cosmological temperature vs. age .......................................................... 103
5.4.2.2 Magnitude of the Hubble constant vs. Cosmological age...................................... 104
5.4.3
Cosmological evolution process.............................................................................. 105
5.4.4
History of the Universe according to EGM ............................................................. 106
5.5
Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 107
5.5.1
Conceptualization................................................................................................... 107
5.5.1.1 “λx” ..................................................................................................................... 107
5.5.1.2 “TL” ..................................................................................................................... 108
5.5.1.3 “CΩ_J” .................................................................................................................. 108
5.5.1.4 “Stω”.................................................................................................................... 109
5.5.2
Dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity ......................................................... 109
5.5.2.1 “HU” .................................................................................................................... 109
5.5.2.2 “TU”..................................................................................................................... 110
5.6

Concluding remarks......................................................................................................... 110

5.7
Graphical summary ......................................................................................................... 112
5.7.1
“TU3 vs. Hβ”: Figure 4.22........................................................................................ 112
5.7.2
“TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.23..................................................................... 113
5.7.3
“TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.24.................................................................... 114
5.7.4
“TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.25................................................................... 115
5.7.5
“TU3 vs. H = (HβHα)” (i): Figure 4.26 ..................................................................... 116
5.7.6
“TU3 vs. H = (HβHα)” (ii): Figure 4.27 .................................................................... 117
5.7.7
“TU3 vs. r = (HβHα)-1c” (i): Figure 4.28 ................................................................... 118
5.7.8
“TU3 vs. r = (HβHα)-1c” (ii): Figure 4.29.................................................................. 119
5.7.9
“dTU4/dt vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.30............................................................... 120
5.7.10
“dTU4/dt vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.31.............................................................. 121
5.7.11
“d2TU4/dt2 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.32 ............................................................ 122
5.7.12
“d2TU4/dt2 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.33 ........................................................... 123
5.7.13
“|d3TU4/dt3| vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.34........................................................... 124
5.7.14
“|d3TU4/dt3| vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.35.......................................................... 125
5.7.15
“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.36 ..................................................................... 126
5.7.16
“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.37 .................................................................... 127
5.7.17
“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.38 ................................................................... 128
5.7.18
“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iv): Figure 4.39.................................................................... 129
5.7.19
“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.40................................................................... 130
5.7.20
“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.41.................................................................. 131
5.7.21
“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.42................................................................. 132
5.7.22
“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iv): Figure 4.43................................................................. 133
5.7.23
“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (v): Figure 4.44 .................................................................. 134
12

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.24
5.7.25
5.7.26
5.7.27
5.7.28
6
6.1

“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (vi): Figure 4.45 ................................................................. 135
“|H| vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.46.......................................................................... 136
“|H| vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.47......................................................................... 137
“TU2,3 vs. |H|”: Figure 4.48...................................................................................... 138
“TU2 vs. |H|”: Figure 4.49........................................................................................ 139

“q0, Λ0”............................................................................................................................... 141
SMoC.............................................................................................................................. 141

6.2
EGM ............................................................................................................................... 141
6.2.1
“Ro, MG, ΩEGM, Ω ZPF”............................................................................................. 141
6.2.2
“ΩZPF → –q0 → qSM_1” ........................................................................................... 142
6.2.3
“Λ0”........................................................................................................................ 143
6.2.4
“UΛ, UZPF, Uλ”........................................................................................................ 143
6.2.5
“T0”........................................................................................................................ 144
6.2.6
“ΛZPF → qSM_2”....................................................................................................... 145
6.2.7
“qSM_2 ≈ ±½” .......................................................................................................... 145
6.2.7.1 Construct ............................................................................................................. 145
6.2.7.2 Sample calculations ............................................................................................. 146
6.2.7.3 Analysis............................................................................................................... 147
6.3

EGM vs. SMoC ............................................................................................................... 147

6.4

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 148

7
7.1

Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 149
Numbering conventions................................................................................................... 149

7.2
Quinta Essentia – Part 3................................................................................................... 149
7.2.1
Alpha Forms “αx”................................................................................................... 149
7.2.2
Amplitude Spectrum............................................................................................... 149
7.2.3
Background Field ................................................................................................... 149
7.2.4
Bandwidth Ratio “∆ωR”.......................................................................................... 149
7.2.5
Beta Forms “βx” ..................................................................................................... 149
7.2.6
Buckingham Π Theory (BPT)................................................................................. 149
7.2.7
Casimir Force “FPP”................................................................................................ 149
7.2.8
Change in the Number of Modes “∆nS” .................................................................. 149
7.2.9
Compton Frequency “ωCx” ..................................................................................... 149
7.2.10
Cosmological Constant........................................................................................... 150
7.2.11
Critical Boundary “ωβ”........................................................................................... 150
7.2.12
Critical Factor “KC”................................................................................................ 150
7.2.13
Critical Field Strengths “EC and BC”....................................................................... 150
7.2.14
Critical Frequency “ωC” ......................................................................................... 150
7.2.15
Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H” ......................................................................... 150
7.2.16
Critical Mode “NC”................................................................................................. 150
7.2.17
Critical Phase Variance “φC” .................................................................................. 150
7.2.18
Critical Ratio “KR” ................................................................................................. 150
7.2.19
Curl ........................................................................................................................ 150
7.2.20
DC-Offsets ............................................................................................................. 150
13

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.21
7.2.22
7.2.23
7.2.24
7.2.25
7.2.26
7.2.27
7.2.28
7.2.29
7.2.30
7.2.31
7.2.32
7.2.33
7.2.34
7.2.35
7.2.36
7.2.37
7.2.38
7.2.39
7.2.40
7.2.41
7.2.42
7.2.43
7.2.44
7.2.45
7.2.46
7.2.47
7.2.48
7.2.49
7.2.50
7.2.51
7.2.52
7.2.53
7.2.54
7.2.55
7.2.56
7.2.57
7.2.58
7.2.59
7.2.60
7.2.61
7.2.62
7.2.63
7.2.64
7.2.65
7.2.66
7.2.67
7.2.68
7.2.69
7.2.70
7.2.71

Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's) ............................................................ 151
Divergence ............................................................................................................. 151
Dominant Bandwidth.............................................................................................. 151
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) ............................................................................ 151
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum............................................................. 151
Energy Density (General) ....................................................................................... 151
Engineered Metric .................................................................................................. 151
Engineered Refractive Index “KEGM”...................................................................... 151
Engineered Relationship Function “∆K0(ω,X)”....................................................... 151
Experimental Prototype (EP) .................................................................................. 151
Experimental Relationship Function “K0(ω,X)”...................................................... 151
Fourier Spectrum.................................................................................................... 151
Frequency Bandwidth “∆ωPV” ................................................................................ 152
Frequency Spectrum ............................................................................................... 152
Fundamental Beat Frequency “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)” ...................................................... 152
Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”.................................................... 152
General Modelling Equations (GMEx) .................................................................... 152
General Relativity (GR).......................................................................................... 152
General Similarity Equations (GSEx) ...................................................................... 152
Gravitons “γg” ........................................................................................................ 152
Graviton Mass-Energy Threshold “mγg” ................................................................. 152
Group Velocity....................................................................................................... 152
Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ” ........................................................................ 152
Harmonic Cut-Off Function “Ω” ............................................................................ 153
Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ” ................................................................................ 153
Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”............................................................................. 153
Harmonic Inflection Frequency “ωX”...................................................................... 153
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength “λX”.................................................................... 153
Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx)................................................................... 153
IFF ......................................................................................................................... 153
Impedance Function ............................................................................................... 153
Kinetic Spectrum.................................................................................................... 153
Mode Bandwidth .................................................................................................... 153
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) “nβ”........................................................ 153
Number of Permissible Modes “N∆r” ...................................................................... 154
Phenomena of Beats ............................................................................................... 154
Photon Mass-Energy Threshold “mγ”...................................................................... 154
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) ....................................................................................... 154
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωΩ” .................................................. 154
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum........................................................................ 154
Potential Spectrum.................................................................................................. 154
Poynting Vector...................................................................................................... 154
Precipitations.......................................................................................................... 154
Primary Precipitant................................................................................................. 154
Radii Calculations by Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) .......................................... 155
Range Factor “Stα” ................................................................................................. 155
Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R) .................................. 155
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx R) .................................................. 155
Refractive Index “KPV”........................................................................................... 155
Representation Error “RError” .................................................................................. 155
RMS Charge Radii (General).................................................................................. 155
14

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.72
7.2.73
7.2.74
7.2.75
7.2.76
7.2.77
7.2.78
7.2.79
7.2.80
7.2.81
7.2.82
7.2.83
7.2.84
7.2.85
7.2.86
7.2.87
7.2.88
7.2.89
7.2.90
7.2.91
7.2.92
7.2.93

RMS Charge Radius of the Neutron “rν”................................................................. 155
Similarity Bandwidth “∆ωS” ................................................................................... 155
Spectral Energy Density “ρ0(ω)” ............................................................................ 156
Spectral Similarity Equations (SSEx) ...................................................................... 156
Subordinate Bandwidth .......................................................................................... 156
Unit Amplitude Spectrum ....................................................................................... 156
Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE)........................................................................................ 156
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) ........................................................................................... 156
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Spectrum ........................................................................... 156
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωZPF” ................................................... 156
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”....................................... 156
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Mode “nΩ ZPF” .............................................. 156
1st Sense Check “Stβ”.............................................................................................. 156
2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)............................... 156
2nd Sense Check “Stγ” ............................................................................................. 156
3rd Sense Check “Stδ” ............................................................................................. 157
4th Sense Check “Stε”.............................................................................................. 157
5th Sense Check “Stη” ............................................................................................. 157
6th Sense Check “Stθ” ............................................................................................. 157
Physical Constants.................................................................................................. 157
Mathematical Constants and Symbols..................................................................... 158
Solar System Statistics............................................................................................ 158

7.3
Quinta Essentia – Part 4................................................................................................... 159
7.3.1
“Big-Bang”............................................................................................................. 159
7.3.2
Black-Hole “BH” ................................................................................................... 159
7.3.3
Broadband Propagation .......................................................................................... 159
7.3.4
Buoyancy Point ...................................................................................................... 159
7.3.5
CMBR Temperature “T0” ....................................................................................... 159
7.3.6
EGM-CMBR Temperature “TU”............................................................................. 159
7.3.7
EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”..................................................................................... 159
7.3.8
EGM Hubble constant “HU” ................................................................................... 159
7.3.9
Event Horizon “RBH”.............................................................................................. 159
7.3.10
Galactic Reference Particle “GRP” ......................................................................... 159
7.3.11
Gravitational Interference ....................................................................................... 159
7.3.12
Gravitational Propagation ....................................................................................... 159
7.3.13
Hubble Constant “H0”............................................................................................. 160
7.3.14
Narrowband Propagation ........................................................................................ 160
7.3.15
Non-Physical .......................................................................................................... 160
7.3.16
Physical.................................................................................................................. 160
7.3.17
Primordial Universe................................................................................................ 160
7.3.18
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”.......................................................................... 160
7.3.19
Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole “SPBH”............................................................ 160
7.3.20
Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle................................................................................ 160
7.3.21
Singularity.............................................................................................................. 160
7.3.22
Singularity Radius “rS” ........................................................................................... 160
7.3.23
Solar Mass.............................................................................................................. 160
7.3.24
Super-Massive-Black-Hole “SMBH”...................................................................... 161
7.3.25
Total Mass-Energy ................................................................................................. 161
7.3.26
Astronomical / Cosmological statistics ................................................................... 161

15

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8

Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................. 163

8.1
Quinta Essentia – Part 3................................................................................................... 163
8.1.1
Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 163
8.1.2
Symbols in alphabetical order................................................................................. 165
8.2
Quinta Essentia – Part 4................................................................................................... 172
8.2.1
Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 172
8.2.2
Symbols by chapter ................................................................................................ 173
8.2.3
Symbols in alphabetical order................................................................................. 177
9

Key Artefact and Equation Summary .............................................................................. 181

9.1
Quinta Essentia – Part 3................................................................................................... 181
9.1.1
Dimensional Analysis............................................................................................. 181
9.1.1.1 “KPV, K0(X)” ....................................................................................................... 181
9.1.1.2 “a(t)”.................................................................................................................... 181
9.1.2
General modelling and the critical factor ................................................................ 181
9.1.2.1 “KC” .................................................................................................................... 181
9.1.2.2 “GME1” ............................................................................................................... 181
9.1.2.3 “GME2” ............................................................................................................... 182
9.1.3
The engineered metric ............................................................................................ 182
9.1.3.1 “KR” .................................................................................................................... 182
9.1.3.2 “∆K0(ω,X)”.......................................................................................................... 182
9.1.3.3 “KEGM” (normal matter form)............................................................................... 182
9.1.4
Amplitude and frequency spectra............................................................................ 182
9.1.4.1 “CPV” ................................................................................................................... 182
9.1.4.2 “ωPV” ................................................................................................................... 182
9.1.4.3 “nΩ” ..................................................................................................................... 182
9.1.4.4 “Ω”...................................................................................................................... 182
9.1.4.5 “ωΩ” .................................................................................................................... 182
9.1.5
General similarity ................................................................................................... 183
9.1.5.1 “ωβ”..................................................................................................................... 183
9.1.5.2 EGM Wave Propagation ...................................................................................... 183
9.1.5.3 EGM Spectrum .................................................................................................... 183
9.1.6
Harmonic and spectral similarity ............................................................................ 183
9.1.6.1 “φC = 0°, 90°”, “EC, BC”....................................................................................... 183
9.1.6.2 “SSE4,5” ............................................................................................................... 184
9.1.6.3 DC-Offsets........................................................................................................... 184
9.1.6.4 “ωC”..................................................................................................................... 184
9.1.7
The Casimir Effect ................................................................................................. 184
9.1.7.1 “NX” .................................................................................................................... 184
9.1.7.2 “NC” .................................................................................................................... 184
9.1.7.3 “ωX” .................................................................................................................... 184
9.1.7.4 “FPV” ................................................................................................................... 184
9.1.7.5 “∆r, λx, Erms, Brms, 0c, ±π, ±π/2”........................................................................... 184
9.1.8
Physical characteristics........................................................................................... 185
9.1.8.1 Photon / Graviton................................................................................................. 185
9.1.8.1.1 “mγ” ............................................................................................................... 185
9.1.8.1.2 “mgg”.............................................................................................................. 185
9.1.8.1.3 “mγγ” .............................................................................................................. 185
9.1.8.1.4 “rγγ”................................................................................................................ 185
16

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.8.1.4.1 Primary ................................................................................................... 185
9.1.8.1.4.2 Secondary................................................................................................ 185
9.1.8.1.5 “rgg” ............................................................................................................... 185
9.1.8.2 “α” ...................................................................................................................... 185
9.1.8.2.1 Primary .......................................................................................................... 185
9.1.8.2.2 Secondary ...................................................................................................... 185
9.1.8.3 “Stω”.................................................................................................................... 186
9.1.8.4 Electron, Muon, Tau ............................................................................................ 186
9.1.8.4.1 “rε, rµ, rτ”........................................................................................................ 186
9.1.8.4.2 “ren, rµn, rτn”.................................................................................................... 186
9.1.8.5 Proton, Neutron.................................................................................................... 186
9.1.8.5.1 “ωΩ” .............................................................................................................. 186
9.1.8.5.2 “rπ, rν”............................................................................................................ 186
9.1.8.5.3 “ρch”............................................................................................................... 186
9.1.8.5.4 “rdr”................................................................................................................ 186
9.1.8.5.5 “KS”............................................................................................................... 187
9.1.8.5.6 “b1, rX”........................................................................................................... 187
9.1.8.5.7 “rνM” .............................................................................................................. 187
9.1.8.5.8 “rπE”............................................................................................................... 187
9.1.8.5.9 “rπM” .............................................................................................................. 187
9.1.8.5.10 “rp”............................................................................................................... 187
9.1.8.6 Quark / Boson harmonics..................................................................................... 187
9.1.8.6.1 “Up Quark”.................................................................................................... 187
9.1.8.6.2 Electron ......................................................................................................... 187
9.1.8.7 Hydrogen Spectrum: “λA”.................................................................................... 188
9.1.9
Theoretical propositions ......................................................................................... 188
9.1.9.1 The Planck scale: “Kω, Kλ, Km” ........................................................................... 188
9.1.9.2 Particles ............................................................................................................... 188
9.1.9.2.1 Leptons: “mL(2), mL(3), mL(5)”...................................................................... 188
9.1.9.2.2 Quarks / Bosons: “mQB(5), mQB(6)”................................................................ 188
9.2
Quinta Essentia – Part 4................................................................................................... 189
9.2.1
Gravitation ............................................................................................................. 189
9.2.1.1 “Stg” .................................................................................................................... 189
9.2.1.2 “ωΩ_2”.................................................................................................................. 189
9.2.1.3 “aEGM_ωΩ” ............................................................................................................ 189
9.2.1.4 “StG”.................................................................................................................... 189
9.2.1.5 “ωΩ_3”.................................................................................................................. 189
9.2.1.6 “λΩ_3” .................................................................................................................. 189
9.2.1.7 “G” ...................................................................................................................... 189
9.2.1.8 “ωPV(nPV,r,M)3” ................................................................................................... 189
9.2.1.9 “StJ”..................................................................................................................... 189
9.2.1.10
“CΩ_J1, CΩ_Jω” .................................................................................................. 189
9.2.1.11
“nΩ_2”............................................................................................................... 190
9.2.1.12
“KDepp”............................................................................................................. 190
9.2.1.13
“KPV” ............................................................................................................... 190
9.2.1.14
“TL” ................................................................................................................. 190
9.2.1.15
“ωg” ................................................................................................................. 190
9.2.1.16
“ngg”................................................................................................................. 190
9.2.1.17
“rω” .................................................................................................................. 190
9.2.1.18
“aPV” ................................................................................................................ 190
17

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.1.19
“ag” .................................................................................................................. 190
9.2.1.20
“gav”................................................................................................................. 191
9.2.2
Planck-Particles...................................................................................................... 191
9.2.2.1 “mx”..................................................................................................................... 191
9.2.2.2 “λx” ..................................................................................................................... 191
9.2.2.3 “ρm, ρS” ............................................................................................................... 191
9.2.2.4 “r3, M3”................................................................................................................ 191
9.2.3
SBH’s..................................................................................................................... 191
9.2.3.1 “StBH” .................................................................................................................. 191
9.2.3.2 “ωΩ_4”.................................................................................................................. 191
9.2.3.3 “rS” ...................................................................................................................... 191
9.2.3.4 “nΩ_4” .................................................................................................................. 192
9.2.3.5 “nΩ_5” .................................................................................................................. 192
9.2.3.6 “nBH” ................................................................................................................... 192
9.2.3.7 “ωΩ_5”.................................................................................................................. 192
9.2.3.8 “ωBH”................................................................................................................... 192
9.2.3.9 “ωΩ_6”.................................................................................................................. 192
9.2.3.10
“ωΩ_7”.............................................................................................................. 192
9.2.3.11
“ωPV_1”............................................................................................................. 192
9.2.3.12
“ng”.................................................................................................................. 192
9.2.4
Cosmology ............................................................................................................. 192
9.2.4.1 “r2, M2”................................................................................................................ 192
9.2.4.2 “λy” ..................................................................................................................... 192
9.2.4.3 “KU” .................................................................................................................... 193
9.2.4.4 “AU” .................................................................................................................... 193
9.2.4.5 “RU” .................................................................................................................... 193
9.2.4.6 “HU, HU2, HU5, |H|” .............................................................................................. 193
9.2.4.7 “Hα” .................................................................................................................... 193
9.2.4.8 “ρU, ρU2”.............................................................................................................. 193
9.2.4.9 “MU”.................................................................................................................... 194
9.2.4.10
“KT”................................................................................................................. 194
9.2.4.11
“TW” ................................................................................................................ 194
9.2.4.12
“StT” ................................................................................................................ 194
9.2.4.13
“TU, TU2, TU3, TU4, TU5” ................................................................................... 194
9.2.4.14
“dTdt, dT2dt2, dT3dt3” ........................................................................................ 194
9.2.4.15
“dHdt, dH2dt2”................................................................................................... 195
9.2.4.16
“t1, t2, t3, t4, t5”.................................................................................................. 195
9.2.5
ZPF ........................................................................................................................ 195
9.2.5.1 “ΩEGM” ................................................................................................................ 195
9.2.5.2 “ΩZPF”.................................................................................................................. 196
9.2.5.3 “UZPF”.................................................................................................................. 196
9.2.6
EGM Construct limits............................................................................................. 196
9.2.6.1 “ML” .................................................................................................................... 196
9.2.6.2 “rL” ...................................................................................................................... 196
9.2.6.3 “tL” ...................................................................................................................... 196
9.2.6.4 “ML / rL = MEGM / REGM = tL / tEGM” ..................................................................... 196
9.2.7
Particle-Physics ...................................................................................................... 196
9.2.7.1 “mγγ2” .................................................................................................................. 196
9.2.7.2 “mgg2” .................................................................................................................. 196
9.2.7.3 “rγγ2” .................................................................................................................... 196
9.2.7.4 “rgg2”.................................................................................................................... 197
18

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.7.5 “Nγ” ..................................................................................................................... 197
9.2.7.6 “Qγ” ..................................................................................................................... 197
9.2.7.7 “Qγγ” .................................................................................................................... 197
9.2.7.8 “Qγγ2”................................................................................................................... 197
9.2.7.9 “tL / TL = mγγ / mγγ2 = Qγγ / Qγγ2”........................................................................... 197
9.2.8
Other useful relationships ....................................................................................... 197
APPENDIX 2.A......................................................................................................................... 199
APPENDIX 2.B ......................................................................................................................... 215
APPENDIX 2.C......................................................................................................................... 217
APPENDIX 2.D......................................................................................................................... 223
Quinta Essentia – Part 3 .............................................................................................................. 223

MathCad 8 Professional: calculation engine............................................................ 223
a. Computational environment ........................................................................................ 223
b. Units of measure (definitions) ..................................................................................... 223
c. Constants (definitions) ................................................................................................ 224
e. Planck characteristics (definitions) .............................................................................. 225
f.
Astronomical statistics ................................................................................................ 225
g. Other........................................................................................................................... 225
h. Arbitrary values for illustrational purposes.................................................................. 225
i.
PV / ZPF equations ..................................................................................................... 226
j.
Casimir equations........................................................................................................ 227
k. Fundamental particle equations ................................................................................... 228
l.
Particle summary matrix 3.1........................................................................................ 232
m. Particle summary matrix 3.2........................................................................................ 233
n. Particle summary matrix 3.3........................................................................................ 234
o. Particle summary matrix 3.4........................................................................................ 235
p. Similarity equations .................................................................................................... 236
q. Calculation results....................................................................................................... 237
r.
Resonant Casimir cavity design specifications (experimental)..................................... 245

MathCad 12: High precision calculation results ...................................................... 247
a. Computational environment ........................................................................................ 247
b. Particle summary matrix 3.1........................................................................................ 247
c. Particle summary matrix 3.2........................................................................................ 248
d. Particle summary matrix 3.3........................................................................................ 249
e. Particle summary matrix 3.4........................................................................................ 250
Quinta Essentia – Part 4 .............................................................................................................. 253

MathCad 8 Professional.......................................................................................... 253
a. Complete simulation ................................................................................................... 253
i. Computational environment..................................................................................... 253
ii. Units of measure (definitions).................................................................................. 253
iii.
Constants (definitions) ......................................................................................... 253
iv.
Astronomical statistics ......................................................................................... 253
v. Characterisation of the gravitational spectrum.......................................................... 253
1. “Ω → Ω1, nΩ → nΩ_1, ωΩ → ωΩ_1”....................................................................... 253
2. “g → ωΩ”............................................................................................................. 255
19

www.deltagroupengineering.com

“ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_2” ................................................................................................. 255
“ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_3” ................................................................................................. 257
3. “g → ωPV3” .......................................................................................................... 257
4. “SωΩ → c⋅Um”...................................................................................................... 258
5. “CΩ_J” .................................................................................................................. 258
vi.
Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and SBH characteristics...................................... 259
1. “λx, mx” ............................................................................................................... 259
2. “ρm(λxλh,mxmh), Um(λxλh,mxmh)” ........................................................................ 261
3. Physicality of “Kλ” .............................................................................................. 261
4. “KPV @ λxλh”....................................................................................................... 261
i. “KPV = Undefined”........................................................................................... 261
ii. “KDepp = KPV”................................................................................................... 263
5. “ωΩ_3”.................................................................................................................. 264
6. “ωΩ_4”.................................................................................................................. 265
7. “rS” ...................................................................................................................... 266
i. “rS(λxλh)” ......................................................................................................... 266
ii. “rS(ΜΒΗ), rS(RΒΗ)” ........................................................................................... 266
iii. “MBH(rS)” ........................................................................................................ 267
8. “r → RBH”............................................................................................................ 268
i. “nΩ → nΩ_4, nΩ_5, nBH” ..................................................................................... 268
ii. “ωΩ → ωΩ_5, ωBH” ........................................................................................... 269
iii. “ωΩ_6, ωΩ_7, ωPV_1” .......................................................................................... 270
9. “TL” ..................................................................................................................... 271
10.
“ωg, ngg”........................................................................................................... 272
11.
BH’s ................................................................................................................ 273
vii.
Fundamental Cosmology...................................................................................... 275
1. “Hα, HU” .............................................................................................................. 275
i. “AU, RU, HU”.................................................................................................... 275
ii. “Hα”................................................................................................................. 276
iii. “ρU”................................................................................................................. 276
iv. “MU”................................................................................................................ 277
2. “TU”..................................................................................................................... 277
3. “TU → TU2” ......................................................................................................... 278
4. “TU2 → Ro, MG, HU2, ρU2”.................................................................................... 279
5. “UZPF”.................................................................................................................. 281
viii. Advanced Cosmology .......................................................................................... 281
1. “nΩ_2 → nΩ_6” ...................................................................................................... 281
2. “KU2 → KU3” ....................................................................................................... 282
3. “HU2 → HU3, TU2 → TU3”..................................................................................... 282
4. “HU3 → HU4, TU3 → TU4”..................................................................................... 282
5. “HU4 → HU5, TU4 → TU5”..................................................................................... 282
6. “HU3, HU4, HU5, TU3, TU4, TU5” ............................................................................. 283
7. Time dependent characteristics ............................................................................ 283
8. History of the Universe ........................................................................................ 292
9. “ML, rL, tL, tEGM”.................................................................................................. 293
10.
Radio astronomy .............................................................................................. 294
ix.
Gravitational Cosmology ..................................................................................... 295
x. Particle Cosmology.................................................................................................. 297
b. Calculation engine ...................................................................................................... 299
i. Computational environment..................................................................................... 299
i.
ii.

20

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ii. Standard relationships.............................................................................................. 299
iii.
Derived constants................................................................................................. 299
iv.
Base approximations / simplifications .................................................................. 300
v. SBH mass and radius ............................................................................................... 301
vi.
“nΩ” ..................................................................................................................... 302
vii.
“ωΩ, TΩ, λΩ” ........................................................................................................ 303
viii. Gravitation........................................................................................................... 305
ix.
Flux intensity ....................................................................................................... 306
x. Photon and Graviton populations ............................................................................. 308
xi.
Hubble constant and CMBR temperature ............................................................. 309
xii.
SBH temperature ................................................................................................. 316
xiii. ZPF...................................................................................................................... 317
xiv. Cosmological limits ............................................................................................. 318
xv.
Particle Cosmology.............................................................................................. 318

MathCad 12............................................................................................................ 321
c. High precision calculation engine................................................................................ 321
i. Computational environment..................................................................................... 321
ii. Astronomical statistics ............................................................................................. 321
iii.
Derived constants................................................................................................. 321
iv.
Algorithm ............................................................................................................ 321
d. Various forms of the derived constants........................................................................ 322
Bibliography 2........................................................................................................................... 323
Periodic Table of the Elements ................................................................................................. 324
Cosmological Evolution Process ............................................................................................... 325
Notes

22, 40, 50, 64, 72, 140, 158, 161-162, 164, 171-172, 176, 180, 198, 214, 216, 221222, 246, 251-252, 298, 320, 322, 327, 328
ERRATA

21

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

22

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1 Quinta Essentia
1.1

The aether

“Among the great things which are found among us, the existence of nothing is the greatest.”
• Leonardo da Vinci6
1.1.1 The void
The Sun, the Earth and all the planets of our solar system float in the vast expanse of space
along with every other material object in the Universe. Our world is effortlessly, almost magically,
suspended in an equally mystical, indefinable void. It may easily be assumed that few people today
ever give a moment of thought to the question of what space actually is. To others, this question is
an obsession.
The nature of space has been the source of philosophical and scientific debate for thousands
of years. This debate began as a rational argument to substantiate the existence of “nothing”. Before
humanity had any experiential knowledge of space, a debate raged about whether a threedimensional volume could be completely devoid of all substance. If there was in-fact a true void,
could it even be thought to exist? Over the centuries, “the void” eventually gained acceptance as a
truism, but then the debate shifted to questions concerning the physical nature of nothingness. Was
the void truly nothing, or is it composed of an aethereal substance?
The question posed by philosophers throughout the ages is: how can “nothing” exist as part
of our reality, that is, since “nothing” represents a state of non-existence, it is a paradox and a
contradiction in terms. Some ancient Greek philosophers expressly opposed the existence of the
void for this reason. But the precise definition of the void at that time was considered to be a true
and complete nothingness. One interpretation of the vacuum was related to the idea of “zero”,
which is in many ways just as unfathomable as the concept of “infinity”.
The Roman poet Lucretius is well known for the phrase: “ex nihilo nihil fit”, meaning,
“nothing comes from nothing” – an idea originally expressed by the Greek philosopher Empedocles
(495-435 BC). Empedocles’ view was that everything in our material Universe had to be born of
something else, something tangible. Something cannot be created from nothing, nor could anything
simply disappear into nothingness. To the Greek philosophers in this particular camp, everything
that is, is and forever will be, so there was no rational way to include the idea of nothing or the state
of non-existence into arguments regarding the nature of matter.
It is this overlying concept that marks the birth of what is referred to today as “conservation
of energy” in contemporary Physics. This means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,
but only transformed or exchanged. It’s like accounting, or balancing your bank account. Although
we all may wish that money could magically appear in our bank account, or that we could just “addon” an extra zero to the end of our balance, we can’t. The money has to come from somewhere. In
the same way that currency is exchanged for goods and services, paid to us for the work we do, the
same is true of energy – the currency of the Universe.
Leucippus (5th century BC) and his student Democritus (460-370 BC) are both referred to as
being “atomists”. This is because they introduced the notion that matter is composed of eternal,
indivisible, fundamental units. A pure substance, the atomists would say, could be divided and
subdivided again and again until at some point it could be divided no further. The end-point of
matter was called “atomos”, meaning “without parts”. But the philosophical and logical invention
of the atom required something special – namely, a void. All of those unseen atoms that make up
matter would need some free space to move around in – to rearrange themselves and form structures
within. If there were no space, then there would be no movement and no transformation of matter
that we witness in our commonplace experience. There would likewise be no cause-and-effect and
the ever-dynamic motions of the Universe would cease. The Cosmos would be frozen without time.
6

The Notebook, translated and edited by E. Macurdy, London (I954), p.6I. Leonardo da Vinci.
23

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The Pythagoreans, as Aristotle wrote, believed that: “It is the void which keeps things distinct,
being a separation and division of things”7.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) didn’t completely agree with the atomists. In-fact, it was Aristotle
himself who maintained that “Nature abhors a vacuum”. However, he didn’t necessarily disagree
with them either, because his argument wasn’t actually rooted in a denial of the void itself. The
argument now became an issue of defining terms.
When we speak of a vacuum, what do we mean? Aristotle would contend that if one tried to
create new space where there wasn’t space before; matter would always immediately rush in to fill
that space. To use an example based in our own time, if one were to take a zip-sealed plastic
sandwich bag, flatten it completely to remove all the air and then zip it shut, one will find that it
isn’t possible to pull the sides apart in any way that could create a new space inside. Indeed, if one
were to construct a similar experiment utilising something more rigid, like glass or metal, we know
that it is in-fact possible to create a vacuum largely free of air and matter, but the creation of that
vacuum doesn’t entail that a zone of “non-existence” has been substituted in its place. For example,
the new vacuum between the walls of glass would still transmit light.
This point is indicative of the direction the void would take in philosophical terms. The void
was a necessity in the atomists’ view, but it was still impossible because a true void could never
actually be created by any natural process. Something, whatever it may be, still had to occupy the
new space that was created. But what was it, exactly, that was rushing in to fill the space if it wasn’t
some form of matter? The spaces that both permeate objects and separate them from each other
must be composed of something for this line of reasoning to be compatible with experience and
observation. When a vacuum is created, it may be devoid of all matter, but according to Aristotle, it
must still be something.
It was the Hellenistic philosopher, Zeno of Citium (333-264 BC), who’s teachings mark the
beginnings of “Stoicism”8, so named because of the Painted Porch from which he taught. Like
Aristotle, the Stoics also believed in a continuum of matter, or at least an absence of a true void in
the presence of matter. They believed that there must be some kind of substance that occupied the
space around objects, yet also completely permeated them, as if to say that all matter was imbibed
with a spirit which imparts purpose for being. They called this substance “pneuma”, which was
thought to be a mixture of fire and air – an energising fluid.
But unlike Aristotle, who’s void-substance was somewhat static and eternal, the Stoics’
pneuma was dynamic and protected matter from simply dissolving away into the true void of
nothingness which they believed existed, but only surrounded or encapsulated the pneuma. It is this
concept of nothing which has its roots in what Empedocles called the “aether” – a mysterious and
ubiquitous medium which surrounded and permeated matter. This so-called aether, supremely
rarefied and quintessential, became the so-named aetherial substance that gives form to the void.
The debate over nothingness (i.e. non-existence), became a futile endeavour beyond the
realm of empirical study or solution. However, the nature and composition of the vacuum as a real
substance called the aether would take the focus of debate evermore.
1.1.2 The platonic solids
It was Plato (427-347 BC) who derived a mathematical interpretation of the aether. Plato, in
a similar manner to the atomists, boiled down matter into its quintessential elemental constituents.
Study of Pythagorean and Euclidian mathematics quite possibly provided the inspiration for his
development of a rather poetic model of the Universe based on geometric symmetry. In his treatise
called “Timaeus”, Plato describes a complete theory of matter based on what he called the “five
perfect solids”.

7
8

Aristotle quoted in, An Introduction to Greek Philosophy, Boston, (1968), p. 75. J. Robinson.
“Stoa” is Greek for “porch”.
24

www.deltagroupengineering.com

These solids represent the only perfectly symmetrical polyhedrons9 whose outer surfaces are
entirely composed of a single type of regular polygon such as an equilateral triangle, a square or a
pentagon. Other shapes, such as the hexagon, cannot form a polyhedron with a surface comprised
only of hexagons.
The first of these perfect polyhedrons is known as the “tetrahedron”; a three-dimensional
shape consisting of four (4) equilateral triangles connected along their edges to form a three-legged
pyramid structure. The next order of polyhedron is the “octahedron”; composed of two standard
four-sided pyramids sandwiched together by sharing the square base of each pyramid, forming a
diamond shape from eight (8) triangles. Even though the center of the diamond shape is a square on
the inside, the surface is entirely composed of triangles. The third solid is the hexahedron (i.e. a
simple cube). The fourth perfect solid, composed of twenty (20) equilateral triangles, is the
“icosahedron”. The fifth and most unique solid, the “dodecahedron”, is composed of twelve (12)
identical pentagons, forming a shape approximating a soccer ball.
Each of these five solids formed Plato’s version of what we might think of today as a
periodic table of elements which were thought to make up all material objects in the Universe10. Infact, the dodecahedron was considered so important by ancient philosophers that its existence was
kept secret from the general population11. These five elements would go on to form the basis of
Alchemy, which was practiced over the next few thousand years. Empedocles, before Plato, held
the belief that there were only four elements, not including the aether, forming the basic atomic
constituents of all matter; various concoctions of these four elements could create all objects and
substances. The four elements themselves were Earth, Air, Fire and Water.
The existence of the five Platonic solids implied that there must be an additional “fifth
element” of matter, called “Quinta Essentia”. The Quinta Essentia was the aether itself; the
substance that the heavens were made of. It was considered to be eternal, immutable and the source
of all things. This marked a rather different way of viewing the aether because it transformed the
void into the quintessential origin of all things.
The Quinta Essentia didn’t simply infuse matter with spirit in the way that the pneuma was
believed to do, rather, it was considered to be both the fabric of the void and the basis of matter
itself. Plato surmised that these five elements, unlike Empedocles’ four elements, could split and
merge into entirely new and larger atoms and thus form different substances, whereas the four
fundamental elements of Empedocles were combined in various recipes to form substances with
unique characteristics.
In Plato’s model, the five elements correspond to each of the five perfect solids,
Element
Earth
Air
Fire
Water
Aether

Geometry
Hexahedron
Octahedron
Tetrahedron
Icosahedron
Dodecahedron

Plato describes how the first four elements could recombine to form new elements; however,
the dodecahedron was unique. The aether could not be broken up into more fundamental subunits or
recombined with other elements like the others could. This is due to the fact that the surfaces of the
other four solids may be further subdivided into two types of right triangles. One of these is formed
by slicing a square diagonally through its centre. The other is produced by dividing an equilateral
triangle by drawing a line from one tip through to the centre of the base, thus dividing it in half.
What makes the dodecahedron unique in this case is that it is not possible to build a pentagon from
9

Three-dimensional shapes.
Each solid represented one of “the five” atoms.
11
Carl Sagan, “Cosmos” television series.
10

25

www.deltagroupengineering.com

just these two types of right triangles, as it is for the other shapes. The other elements were
malleable, whereas the aether was eternal. The Quinta Essentia thus became the fabric of the
Cosmos upon which all matter was thought to be embroidered.
Oddly enough, this kind of triangular symmetry is mirrored in the subatomic particles and
Quarks comprising the atoms as we have come to understand them today. Our contemporary atomic
model is composed of three subatomic units; Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. Moreover, the Proton
is composed of two “Up” and one “Down” Quark; whereas the Neutron is composed of one “Up”
and two “Down” Quarks.
These Quark triplicates (even the triplicate subatomic components of the atom) can be
likened to Plato’s sub-elemental triangles! Even though we now know that Plato’s conjectures were
nothing more than philosophical representations of reality, it is quite surprising that the basic tenets
of his theory display such prescience. One must wonder whether it was forethought and logic in his
arguments holding true, or whether this connection hints at a deeper order in Nature which Plato
was able to illuminate through his careful study of mathematical symmetry.
1.1.3 The laws of motion
From Roman times to the dark ages, through the middle ages and the Renaissance, the
Platonic solids formed the basis of Physics and Alchemy. The Quinta Essentia contributed to “Sir
Isaac Newton’s” philosophical and scientific stance regarding the aether and remained a key
ingredient in the many concoctions of alchemical practice, greatly contributing to the development
of the modern Scientific Method.
In his writings12, Newton was very careful to remind his readers that he would “feign no
hypotheses” for what the aether could physically be, it remained the basis for his reasoning
throughout. Newton felt that the aether should remain in the realm of the occult and metaphysics,
but in Newton’s time, very little distinction was made between Alchemy and science. These were
completely overlapping methods at a time when formalised science was beginning to burgeon.
In Newton’s laws of motion, gravity was thought to be a “force” which attracted bodies to
each other in the heavens, as it does on Earth. Objects invariably fall to the Earth and it was thought
that an actual, physical force existed pulling everything to the surface. Even to this day, a colloquial
notion of what gravity is persists in our language. We continue to call gravity a “force” and
erroneously refer to it as though it has the ability to reach out and pull in objects from afar. Gravity
in Newton’s time was thought to be transmitted instantaneously through space via the aether,
imparting a force on objects.
Even though Newton implicated the aether as the medium transmitting force, he could not
logically reconcile how the nature and behaviour of solids moving in a fluid could allow a “fluidlike” description of the aether, demonstrating how fluids act to impede the movements of objects.
The planets moved eternally and without resistance through the aether, so how could objects move
in a fluid without any resistance to slow their motion? If the aether was some kind of substance, it
should cause resistance to the orbital motion of planets and cause them to spiral into the Sun.
Newton writes in his work, “Opticks”:
p.528, Qu.28.
“A dense fluid can be of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, the motions
of the planets and comets being better explained without it. It serves only to disturb
and retard the motions of those great bodies, and make the frame of Nature
languish; . . . so there is no evidence for its existence; and, therefore, it ought to be
rejected. . . . the main business of natural philosophy is to argue from phenomena
without feigning hypotheses, and to deduce causes from effects, till we come to the
very first cause, which certainly is not mechanical and not only to unfold the
12

“Principia” (1687) and “Opticks” (1704).
26

www.deltagroupengineering.com

mechanism of the world, but chiefly to resolve these and such like questions. What is
there in places almost empty of matter, and whence is it that the Sun and planets
gravitate towards one another, without dense matter between them? Whence is it that
Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that order and beauty which we
see in the world?”
Thus, Newton recognised that “something” occupying the spaces between objects accounted for
transmission of heat and gravitational force. Otherwise, how could one object like the Earth affect
the motions of the moon so far away with just empty space between them?
In Newton’s time, this strange, disconnected cause-and-effect relationship was referred to as
“action-at-a-distance”, sparking another great debate in Physics which raged until Albert Einstein’s
development of General Relativity (GR) approximately two hundred years later. Newton’s work
however, was immune from this argument, even though it remained a point of great contention,
pestering and haunting him ceaselessly.
Newton eloquently demonstrated that simply understanding the regular, predictable
behaviour of Nature can often suffice, i.e., it is sometimes adequate to formulate a mathematical
description of Nature’s laws “without feigning hypotheses”. He formulated a mathematical structure
describing the motions of the planets without espousing a mechanical, physical manifestation of its
behaviour. If it works, so be it; thus, it became possible to discuss the aether in purely philosophical
terms without invoking it as a necessity for the laws of gravitation and mechanics.
Newton’s equations have allowed us to design rockets to the moon, enabling rover missions
to Mars and made other planetary explorations of our solar system possible. It was also Newton’s
principles of optics which enabled us to design the photographic equipment producing the images of
these adventures, igniting our imaginations. All of this has been possible without having to
understand the mechanics of the aether. The need for the aether evaporated, even though its
existence could be debated; the precise nature of it remained as mysterious and indefinable as ever.
1.1.4 The luminiferous aether
One of the most triumphant and influential discoveries in scientific history was James
Clerck Maxwell’s development of the four equations for ElectroMagnetism in 1864. Based upon
earlier work by Michael Faraday, the introduction of the laws of ElectroMagnetism transformed the
world forever. In much the same way that Newton derived the laws of motion and gravitation from
first principles, by feigning no hypotheses and an uncorrupted observation of Nature, Maxwell was
able to successfully merge the forces of Electricity and Magnetism into a system of interactions he
termed “ElectroMagnetism”.
Maxwell’s equations describe the behaviour and interaction of Electric and Magnetic fields
with matter. He was the first to demonstrate that light is an oscillating wave of intertwined Electric
and Magnetic fields. This hailed the development of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QM). His
equations were a monumental achievement, not only because of their elegance, or because of their
immense usefulness for technological applications, but because they verified a fundamental
connection between Electricity and Magnetism, as these were once considered to be completely
disparate phenomena.
During the latter part of the 19th century, British Physicists13 continually returned to the
notion of the “luminiferous” aether to assess emergent theories. This embodiment of the aether was
so-named because it was believed to represent the medium which carried light, i.e.,
ElectroMagnetic (EM) waves; thus, termed “luminiferous”.
During the Victorian period, technological advancements spawning the industrial revolution
contributed to the rapid development of a mechanistic world-view. British society was bearing
witness to the triumph of the machine; rapidly and drastically transforming the social and cultural
landscape. The technological developments of the age shaped the spectacles through which British
13

Those following Maxwell’s lead to further describe ElectroMagnetism.
27

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Scientists would view the Universe, skewing the perception of theorists, causing them to
conceptualise the fabric of space in terms of cogs and wheels14. This emergent perspective gave
Physicists cause to explain ElectroMagnetism in terms of the mechanical language of the day.
Light was discovered by Maxwell to be an EM wave propagating through space. But what
did this actually mean? What were these waves of light propagating in? What were they made of?
We can easily imagine waves of light propagating through space like waves on the surface of the
ocean rolling towards the shore. However, the concept of waves implies movement through a
medium. So the question was; what substance carried these waves of light?
The aether was an attempt to provide a physical explanation for an abstract mathematical
representation of Maxwell’s equations for ElectroMagnetism. The form of this physical substance
was modelled after the most prevalent mechanistic imagery of the time. In our own era, some
theorists argue for an “information” philosophy as the basis for conceptualising elementary particle
phenomenon, so that matter itself may be conceptualised in terms of binary bits of information. The
fundamental constituent of our known Universe, according to information theory, is not really bits
of “stuff”, rather bytes of information15. In the “information and computing age”, we are naturally
tempted to create philosophical models reflecting our own zeitgeist16; in precisely the same manner
as Maxwellian Physicists in their quest for a mechanical interpretation of physical reality.
The aether provided Scientists at the time with a convenient pedagogical tool for describing
the manner in which Electric and Magnetic forces interacted. A driving desire existed to validate the
aether, unifying physical phenomena as purely mechanical movements, in-line with the late 19th
century’s view of the Universe. If the problem of the aether could be resolved, it would be a
scientific triumph rivalling all others, providing instant fame and glory for those whom resolved it.
Any mechanical proof of the aether’s structure eliminates the nagging problem of “action-at-adistance”, which had been a source of debate since Newton’s time.
The Maxwellians wanted a complete theory quieting metaphysical questions regarding
precisely how EM signals propagated and planets separated by vast distances in space could interact
with one another. Following the lead of Descartes, theorists even developed models demonstrating
how matter might be understood as a manifestation of the aether in the form of “vortex rings”. In
this model, atoms are conceptualised as tiny stable vortices within the “fluidic” aether.
But why hold on to these purely hypothetical models of space if one could successfully
predict and harness the phenomenon of ElectroMagnetism via mathematical reasoning alone? By
modelling the luminiferous aether, the classical Physicist could present a working hypothesis for
EM waves demonstrating “how” they mechanically propagate through the aether. Physicists at the
time wrestled with the concepts of “theory” and “method”. If the method works, is there any real
need to provide a concrete theory to explain why the method works? Is it not enough to simply
provide an elegant set of formulae which may be used to describe how Nature works, even if we
still don’t understand why it works that way?
The fervour with which the Maxwellians sought to solve the structure of the aether was
largely motivated by a desire to unify Physics in its entirety. This desire remains just as strong today
as it did in Maxwell’s time. Born of a want to provide an all-encompassing theory utilising the
mechanical language of the Victorian era, the aether had such a manageable and useful quality that
it seemed its discovery was not only attainable, but almost within reach. The aether became the
Holy Grail for the British Maxwellians, not only to make their work on ElectroMagnetism credible,
but to also render it immune to doubt and criticism. There remained a desperate need to hold onto
the idea of the aether, whether it stemmed from a desire for personal triumph, or a sense of
obligation to uphold the essence of Maxwell’s theory; even more persuasive was the tantalizing hint
14

An invisible, intricate and seamlessly connected clockwork of interactions via which the
movements of objects and light travelled through space.
15
Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith and the Search for Order. Alfred A Knopf Publishers, New York
(1995). George Johnson.
16
Spirit of the time.
28

www.deltagroupengineering.com

that there was a golden opportunity to finally unveil the mysterious inner structure of the Cosmos.
The concept of the aether had great philosophical value, but only in its use as a tool.
Eventually, with a greater reliance on purely mathematical approaches to the problems of
ElectroMagnetism, emphasised by the results of the Michelson-Morely experiment, the aether was
eventually abandoned. As the 19th century began to ebb away into the 20th, Einstein later explained
that; “mechanics as the basis of Physics was being abandoned, almost unnoticeably, because its
adaptability to the facts presented itself finally as hopeless”17.
1.1.5 Michelson and Morely
The final nail in the coffin for the luminiferous aether came in the form of an experiment
performed by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 188718; however, the basis for this came
decades earlier. In 1803, Thomas Young demonstrated that when light was directed at an opaque
screen with two slits, the light coming through each slit interfered with one another, forming a
pattern on the wall behind the screen. Known as the “two-slit” experiment, Young discovered light
to be “wave-like” creating peaks and troughs of interference.
The Michelson and Morely experiment was formulated on the premise that if the Earth was
moving through a fluid-like medium, we should be able to detect our movement through it. If the
aether existed in the form envisioned by the Maxwellians, the speed of light through the aether
should be relative to some “ground speed” of the aether itself. Michelson and Morley tested for this
by emitting two perpendicular beams of light from a single point source, reflected by mirrors back
to a single detector.
Because of Young’s pioneering two-slit experiment, Michelson and Morley knew that the
two beams would interfere indicating whether they travelled at different speeds. Taking into
account the rotation of the Earth and relative motions around the Sun, they demonstrated that no
matter what relative direction the beams of light were travelling, no interference pattern is observed
indicative of a preferred direction of the aether.
This experiment silenced the debate over the notion that a mechanical fluid-like aether filled
space, acting as the medium through which light propagated. But Michelson and Morley more
accurately proved that no preferred reference frame exists from which we can measure the
propagation of light signals. This idea became the spring-board for Einstein’s Relativity theory,
where light speed is constant and everything else, including time, is observed relative to the speed
of light.

17
18

The Maxwellians, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, (1991). Bruce J. Hunt.
Philos. Mag. S.5, 24 (151), p.449-463 (1887). A. A. Michelson and E.W. Morley.
29

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.6 Space-Time
Michelson and Morley disproved the existence of the mechanical luminiferous aether
conceptualised in Maxwell’s era, but it did little to arrest the emergence of a contemporary version.
Einstein is, at least partially, responsible for destroying the mechanical aether of old and replacing it
with a new aether all his own. Although this time, unlike the Maxwellians, Einstein feigned no
hypotheses for what physical manifestation the aether might take. Einstein’s development of
Relativity and the notion of a new aether termed “curved space-time” evaporated the concept that
gravity was a force mediated by the ill-defined aether of Newton’s time. Einstein’s equations
demonstrate that an object’s motion in a gravitational field is determined by its “geodesic” path19.
Einstein introduced this concept to describe gravitational interactions between mass-objects,
eliminating the necessity for “action-at-a-distance”. Curved space-time is a geometric contrivance,
but exactly what is being curved? And if the vacuum of space is indeed a formless void, then how
may “nothing” have shape? GR not only invokes, but requires the existence of a medium (i.e.
manifold) capable of conveying information indicating whether the space-time a mass-object
transits is curved. On May 5th, 1920 at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, Einstein gave an
address on the issue of the aether stating,
“According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable;
for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”
To Einstein, the physicality of the space-time fabric was as undeniable as it was indefinable.
He desired an accurate and complete explanation for the physical Universe, in much the same way
that the Maxwellians needed to interpret the physical meaning of ElectroMagnetism through an
understanding of the luminiferous aether. Newton, like Maxwell, feigned no hypotheses in his
explanation for why his equations were true, he only demonstrated that they were; Einstein did the
same with Relativity. However, we must not take the notion of curvature too literally, but we are
still left wrestling with the “imponderable” demon that is the aether.
1.1.7 The Casimir Effect
A French nautical handbook from the 1830’s20 tells of the strange attraction between two
large ships in the open ocean. The optimal condition for this attraction occurs when they are
positioned side by side in moderate swell with little or no wind. If the ships drift within a distance
of “30-40” meters from each other, the handbook states that they are gradually pulled together and
their riggings entangled. To avert disaster, a small boat manned by “20-30” rowers would tow the
ships apart.
So what are we to make of this strange observation? Why is it that the two ships are drawn
together in such a way? The effect, as it so happens, has to do with “boundary conditions”. The
hulls of the two ships may be represented as two parallel lines in a uniform sea. The two ships
delineate the otherwise uniform surface of the ocean, which in turn divides the ocean’s surface into
distinct zones. Each ship establishes a physical boundary separating the region between them from
the greater environment21.
The Dutch Physicist, Sipko Boersma, noticed Causee’s nautical description of this strange
effect during a visit to the Amsterdam Shipping Museum in the mid 1990’s and published a paper

19

i.e. the shortest temporal path between two points in a curved space-time manifold.
L’Album du Marin, Charpentier, Nantes (1836). P.C. Causee.
21
The importance of boundary conditions cannot be overstated; they are the essential hallmark of
dynamic systems.
20

30

www.deltagroupengineering.com

about it in 199622. Boersma sagaciously recognised that this nautical phenomenon observed in the
early 1800’s was a real-world analogy for what is known as the “Casimir Effect” in QM.
Hendrik Casimir, also a Dutch Physicist, predicted a similar effect based on the rules of QM
nearly “50” years earlier. Casimir’s discovery marked a key turning point in the philosophical
debate which has raged since ancient times on the true nature of the vacuum. The discovery of the
Casimir Effect provided strong evidence, in the form of a physical, measurable force that the socalled empty vacuum of space is in-fact something more resembling a plenum of energy.
The Casimir Effect is a QM manifestation of the nautical observations described in the 19th
century French naval handbook, except that in the Casimir case, the environmental conditions
affected by parallel boundaries are EM waves, propagating in an ocean of energy known as the
Quantum Vacuum (QV).
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) models the vacuum of space as being something quite
different than what most of us might think. People generally assume that the vacuum of deep space
is a true and complete void. Objects occupy a three-dimensional volume in the void and we
conceptualise space as nothing more than a matrix containing matter; once the matter is removed,
we are left with an empty space of the same volume as the matter which has been removed.
However, QFT states that if we were to take a volume of space at the surface of the Earth for
example, evacuate every last molecule of air, shield all thermal radiation so that the vacuum was at
absolute zero temperature, a vacuum of space filled with energy remains; it can never be completely
“evacuated” from a given volume like air. Energy will propagate throughout the volume because
the QV is composed of energy propagating in sinusoidal form and can never fully come to rest;
within QM, energy must cycle about its ground state.
The Casimir Effect occurs when two neutrally charged
conducting plates are placed in close proximity and parallel to
one another, establishing boundary conditions in the QV. In
such a configuration, an attractive force is observed between
the plates, beyond that which may be attributed to gravitational
attraction. The QV is comprised of EM wavefunctions which
may only exist between the plates if their lengths are equal to
or less than the plate separation distance “∆r”; any wave of
longer length cannot exist within the gap! For example, if “∆r =
1(µm)”, only the QV modes of wavelength less than “1(µm)”
may physically exist within that space.
As the plates are drawn closer together, an increasing number of QV modes are excluded
from existence between the plates. This implies that more Quantum-Vacuum-Energy (QVE) exists
outside the plates than in between them. This energy difference pushes the plates together with a
force inversely proportional to the plate separation distance. That is to say, as the plates get closer
together, the force pushing them together becomes greater.
It was not until 1997-8 that the Casimir Force was physically confirmed by two independent
experiments. The first measurement was performed in 1997 by Steve Lamoreaux at the University
of Washington, Seattle23. The second measurement was conducted in 1998 by Umar Mohideen and
Anushree Roy at the University of California, Riverside24. In an experiment similar to that of
Lamoreaux, Mohideen and Roy used an atomic Force Microscope capable of measuring values as
low as “10-18(N)”. Although the Casimir Force is miniscule at the separation distances measured,
confirmation of the Casimir Effect provided physical evidence for the existence of QVE, suggesting
that aether-like energy forms the physical basis of space-time.
22

A maritime analogy of the Casimir Effect, American J Physics, 64, p. 539 (1996). S.L. Boersma.
Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6 µm Range, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5–8 (1997). S.
K. Lamoreaux.
24
A Precision Measurement of the Casimir Force between 0.1 to 0.9 mm, Physical Review Letters,
vol.81, (no.21), APS, (1998). U. Mohideen and Anushree Roy.
23

31

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2

Inertia
“Give me a firm place to stand and I will move the earth.”
• Archimedes (287-212 BC)

For thousands of years the aether has been invoked as a means of explaining various
physical phenomena. However, all attempts have been relegated to the realm of speculation and
philosophical exercise. Human psychology seems to require a medium to account for the balance of
forces we experience in our lives. Birds fly by manipulating the balance of forces beneath their
wings, fish swim by manipulating the balance of forces encasing their bodies and humans walk by
manipulating the balance of forces beneath their feet. We observe force balancing everywhere; for
an object to change velocity, a “push” is required to overcome the balance of uniform motion and in
doing so, encounters an acceleration reaction force termed “inertia”. Objects in uniform motion will
remain in that state unless otherwise acted upon by an outside force25.
Newtonian gravity is analogous to inertia because objects experience the force of gravity in
free space and respond accordingly. Why do objects not experience a force when in a uniform state
of motion, but suddenly do when it changes from one uniform state to another? And what peculiar
attribute of space provides us with this ability to register the difference between them? Why does
matter resist acceleration if there is nothing in the way to impede it? The similarity between the
manner in which matter experiences gravitational and inertial forces is primarily responsible for the
development of modern Physics.
The Czech-Austrian Physicist, Ernst Mach, proposed a possible mechanism for inertial
forces and their connection to gravitation in the late 1800’s, while Einstein was only in his teens and
just beginning to explore the frame of thought which would later lead to the development of
Relativity. In-fact it was Einstein himself who, in describing Mach’s ideas on the subject of inertia,
coined the term “Mach’s Principle”26. Mach’s original proposal was based upon the notion that all
matter in the Universe is homogeneously distributed, connected by a web of gravitational
interactions.
Mach reasoned that all co-ordinates in space should experience the averaged effect of
gravitational fields from all matter in the Universe. Thus, regardless of location, objects experience
gravitational resistance opposing changes in motion. Mach studied the work of Johan Christian
Andreas Doppler27 in great detail; consequently, Mach’s principle for the origin of inertia is
analogous to a gravitational Doppler Effect28. Objects are attracted uniformly in all directions such
that motion induces an immediate opposing force; the averaged gravitational field is compressed in
the direction of motion29.
Mach’s view implies that an object’s motion relative to the fabric of space30 induces inertial
forces. Thus, energy input is required to counter the opposing force as it moves uniformly31. This is
problematic because objects travelling with uniform motion do not experience inertial forces. If
Mach’s principle were true, objects should experience inertial force at all times. However, inertia is
only experienced upon acceleration. Although Mach’s principle was never formally developed into
a quantitative, physical theory, a compelling aspect exists. Despite its inadequacies, Mach’s
conceptualisation was correct in its premise that a relationship exists between gravitational and
inertial forces.

25

Newton’s first law of motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Doppler
28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
29
i.e. motion induces a decompression wake within space.
30
i.e. a pan-universal gravitational matrix.
31
A natural conclusion considering the human experience and knowledge of the era.
26

32

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The relationship between gravitational and inertial forces provides the basis for the
“equivalence principle”; a key premise of GR asserting that geometric interpretations of curved
space-time demonstrate why gravity is the same force as inertia. GR states that any diversion from
an object’s geodesic path of motion in a curved space-time manifold induces an inertial reaction
force.
The most far-reaching of Einstein’s theories is the concept of mass-energy equivalence,
described by “E = mc2”. Einstein realised this connection whilst considering inertia; energy is
required to accelerate an object or alter its geodesic path through curved space-time, implying that
the energy required to change the motion of mass is directly proportional to the mass itself. Thus, it
follows that mass and energy are equivalent – mass is energy and energy is mass!
Einstein’s epiphany leading to the derivation of “E = mc2” was that the more energy
provided to accelerate an object, the more massive it becomes. Understanding the nature of inertia
will allow us to understand the true nature of space and matter. The equivalence principle
necessitates that if we can modify inertial force, we would also be able to manipulate gravity, giving
ourselves a “firm place to stand” in Archimedes’ challenge.
1.3

Material waves

When Louis De Broglie32 was a student at the University of Paris in the early 1920’s, he
learned that mass-less Photons possess momentum and a Photon’s frequency was a measure of its
energy. Thus, if Photons of light possess the wave characteristic of frequency, could the Electron
also have characteristics of waves? Or greater still, could all forms of matter possess wave-like
characteristics as well? The answer, De Broglie discovered, was yes!
Three years after De Broglie derived his hypothesis it was verified experimentally by
Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer at Bell Labs. Experimental confirmation of De Broglie’s
hypothesis earned him the Nobel Prize in 1929. Electrons not only appeared to move in waves, they
may be considered to be waves. Subsequently, matter may be characterised by what is now termed
its “De Broglie wavelength”.
Note: the “Quinta Essentia” series extends this hypothesis by describing matter33 as a spectrum of
wavelengths, rather than a single De Broglie wavelength.
The physical attributes of wavelength and frequency are the characteristics by which we
describe energy, providing the basis for the concept of mass-energy equivalence. Thus, by
considering the fabric of space as being composed of energy, i.e. Plato’s fifth element “Quinta
Essentia”, space is the basis for all matter.
1.4

Equilibration and virtual reality

We may consider the space-time curvature induced by the presence of matter to be a
marriage of the manifold to the mass-energy introduced, constituting “a system”. All natural
systems energetically equilibrate with their environment; hence, the QVE of space surrounding
matter is as important as the matter it circumscribes. The reverse concept implies that the QV
adopts different states dependent upon the local matter content. Thus, it follows that the presence of
matter invokes a local boundary condition in the vacuum such that the mass-energy of the matter
present must equilibrate with the local QVE34. QVE is also referred to as “vacuum energy”35
32

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1929/broglie-bio.html
In terms of mass-energy density.
34
This partitioning of space becomes particularly important at the level of subatomic particles.
35
This is a casual reference commonly utilised for generalised conversation. Please refer to the
“Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM): Technical summary” section for further information.
33

33

www.deltagroupengineering.com

because the energy considered is associated with the vacuum of space and not with matter.
QM permits systems to briefly “borrow” vacuum energy fluctuations for the creation of
“virtual particles”36, followed by re-absorption of the energy back into the QV. However, the
process occurs so rapidly that we may never be able to detect them directly. One might wonder why
particles are considered virtual instead of “real”; since the particles cannot be detected directly, we
consider them to be theoretical37 – however, they induce real and measurable effects.
The most dramatic insight to be gained by understanding the QV is that space affects matter
and matter affects space; a relationship exists between matter, space and energy which cannot be
severed. Although QVE is predicted and obliged to exist by the rules of QM, our psychological
acceptance of the QV appears to be a suspension of disbelief rather than a sincere conviction. The
broader scientific community is required to modify its collective perspective, emphasising future
research pathways in terms of systems of interactive wholes rather than disconnected entities.
1.5

QVIH

QM states that space is replete with QV fluctuations. In the early 1990’s, Astrophysicist
Bernard Haisch and Physicist Alfonso Rueda applied the concept of radiation pressure to the QV. A
Poynting Vector38 is associated with each of the Photons39 within the QV; however, their chaotic
and random distribution requires that the QV does not possess net direction. Thus, in a flat spacetime manifold the QV is said to be isometric40.
Haisch and Rueda wondered what the QV might become from an accelerated reference
frame. By applying standard ElectroDynamic principles, they determined that transformation of the
QV from a stationary to an accelerated reference frame induces asymmetry; the field was no longer
random and isometric. The QV in the accelerated frame appeared to have a net Poynting Vector
associated with it. They discovered that the net Poynting Vector generated by the QV was
proportional to the magnitude of the applied acceleration; thus, the greater the applied acceleration,
the greater the QV resistance.
Haisch and Rueda surmised that upon acceleration, matter experiences an EM drag-force
against the QV, akin to radiation pressure. Object’s will only be affected by the QV when it appears
to have a net direction, i.e., when it is asymmetric. The fact that the magnitude of the QV
asymmetry appeared to be acceleration-dependent implies a physical basis for the existence of
inertia. The model proposed by Haisch and Rueda is called the “QV Inertia Hypothesis” (QVIH).
Why is it that an asymmetry in the QV arises only during acceleration and not during
uniform motion? The QV is predicted to posses a “cubic frequency” distribution in a flat space-time
manifold. Thus, at low frequencies, the QVE density is minimal; however, at high frequencies the
QVE density is maximal (paralleling the cube of the frequency along the EM spectrum). This
means that the highest frequency ranges of the EM spectrum contain the most QVE, making the
36

Virtual particles are invoked to explain conservation of energy and momentum during particle
decay processes. They are also utilised to explain the Electro-Weak and Strong-Nuclear force inside
the atom by virtual particle exchange between subatomic elements. The Electro-Weak force is
generally described as resulting from a subatomic transfer of “virtual Photons”. Moreover, virtual
particles are utilised to plot the creation and annihilation of intermediate particles formed at
accelerator laboratories. Particles are collided at near light-speed and the resulting high-energy
subatomic debris is explained through a mapping process often requiring the use of adjunct virtual
particles. In addition, virtual particles are also utilised to describe the interaction and partitioning of
energy in these exceedingly short-lived events.
37
See: Hawking and Davies-Unruh radiation.
38
The Poynting Vector is a physical measure of the direction and power associated with EM
radiation.
39
Virtual and / or real.
40
i.e. equal in all directions.
34

www.deltagroupengineering.com

energy density of free-space inconceivably energetic. In-fact, it has been estimated that the amount
of QVE contained in a coffee cup volume of empty space would be enough to boil away the Earth’s
oceans41,42.
Haisch and Rueda assert that the cubic frequency distribution of the QV explains why an
object does not experience inertia during uniform motion. An object moving uniformly does not
experience inertia because, regardless of velocity, ambient high-frequency QV Photons compensate
for the Doppler Effect in the trailing direction of motion43. Hence, the distribution of the QV
ensures that space-time appears flat and isometric for any object travelling in uniform motion.
Therefore, the QVIH model remains consistent with GR and the inertial-frame view of
space-time. GR states that an observer travelling in uniform motion through space-time perceives
the Universe as being flat; however, in an accelerated reference frame space-time appears to be
curved. Haisch and Rueda’s classical ElectroDynamics model of inertia asserts a congruent
position; during uniform motion the QV appears symmetric. However, in an accelerated reference
frame, asymmetry44 manifests in the QV; proportional to the magnitude of the applied acceleration.
Thus, rather than the metaphysical non-intuitive terminology of GR, i.e., “flat” or “curved” spacetime, the QVIH facilitates the substitution of intuitive terminology, i.e., physically meaningful
reference to “symmetrical” or “asymmetrical” QVE distributions.
1.6

Bridging the gaps

Einstein relied upon the equivalence principle to
demonstrate that the space-time geometry of an accelerated
reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational field; the same may
be said for the QVIH. Haisch and Rueda have utilised the
equivalence principle to demonstrate the manner in which QV
asymmetry appears in an accelerated reference frame and a
reference frame held fixed in a gravitational field. In the Earth’s
gravitational field, an object experiences force due to local QVE
asymmetry, producing a net energy flux downwards.
QM was largely formulated several years after Einstein
developed GR and he considered the whole field to be rather
unpalatable. Einstein lacked the tools to offer any physical basis
for why inertia existed, or why matter curved space-time. The QV
had not yet been conceived at the time he was developing GR;
thus, he had no foundation from which to derive a potential physical basis for gravity and inertia,
aside from the “luminiferous aether”, which he believed did not exist.
QM, through its prediction of the QV, states that the energy density of the Universe is
enormous. However, when viewed through GR, the energy density of the QV should cause a
catastrophic gravitational collapse of the Universe. This creates a major dilemma for Physicists and
Astronomers; either QM or GR is somehow fundamentally flawed or incomplete, yet they have
proven themselves to be highly accurate means of representing physical systems.

41

Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs, Interstellar Propulsion Society
Newsletter, Vol. I, No. 1, (July 1, 1995). Marc G. Millis.
42
This is the mainstream view, not the view of the EGM construct in the “Quinta Essentia” series
(i.e. QE3,4) where the opposite conclusion is mathematically derived. That is, QE3,4 mathematically
demonstrate that “free space” does not contain a near infinite amount of energy in a vanishing
volume.
43
Analogous to the negation of pressure-drag associated with motion through a Newtonian fluid.
44
i.e. anisotropy.
35

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.7

The Polarisable Vacuum

1.7.1 Blind-sighted
GR is a geometric model of gravity representing space-time as a four-dimensional manifold
of events. It has profoundly enhanced our understanding of the Universe, yielding highly accurate
predictions, yet does not explain why matter produces a gravitational field, or the specific
mechanism by which matter experiences inertial forces upon acceleration. The GR space-time
manifold is a vacuum – a void. If this is indeed the case, then an obvious question arises: how can
nothing have curved four-dimensional geometry?
20th century Physics has replaced Newtonian “action-at-a-distance” with the equally abstract
concept of “curved space-time”. Physicists have largely ignored the question of why objects “feel”
force upon acceleration, surrendering without protest to the notion that it comes from nowhere,
content to nod vacantly in peer agreement and accept the logical contradictions of “geometric
nothingness” in lieu of predicting Nature. Many are so comfortable with this that they insist the
relativistic tensor mathematics is space-time – substituting the abstraction for the phenomenon45.
Physicist John Wheeler is noted for his concise description of GR: “matter tells space how
to curve and curved space tells matter how to move.” However, does “matter curving space” cause
light to bend? Ask an Engineer to bend light and they won’t attempt it by curving space-time; if you
want to bend light, put it through a lens!
1.7.2 Optical gravity
Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda introduced a model describing matter as being
immersed-in and wholly dependent upon the QV for its existence. This fed an intuitively appealing
interpretation of space-time curvature termed the “Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Approach to GR”46.
Harold Puthoff first introduced the PV model in 2002, having drawn upon earlier work by Harold
Wilson, Robert Dicke and Andrei Sakharov.
The PV model is an optical interpretation of gravity because it applies optical principles to
define the topological features of space-time, otherwise represented geometrically within GR. It
attributes space-time with a variable Refractive Index “KPV”, not “curvature”. The value of “KPV” is
proportional to the energy density associated with a gravitational field. As light passes a massobject, it transits through regions of variable “KPV” and refracts (i.e. bends), in accordance with the
experimentally verified results within the GR construct.
Light is refracted as it passes from one gravitational field to another of differing strength
(i.e. energy density). When light transits from a region of low “KPV” to high, it slows down; causing
it to bend47. The degree to which it refracts also depends upon the “angle of incidence”. Sir Isaac
Newton worked extensively in this field and we owe the science of Optics to him. He studied how
lenses of differing shape and density bend light. However, its core principles are based upon Photon
exchange in the governing theory; termed, Quantum-ElectroDynamics (QED).
The PV model ascribes a value of “KPV” to the QV48 such that all matter generates a
gradient in the energy density of the QV surrounding it. The gradient relates to a change in “KPV”
acting as a space-time lens causing light to bend49. Hence, the PV model demonstrates that
substituting the metaphysical conceptualisation of space-time curvature with a physically
meaningful optical construct yields a congruent interpretation of gravity to that of GR.
45

GR is a descriptive tool, not a literal explanation of Nature.
H. E. Puthoff, “Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) approach to general relativity”, Found. Phys. 32, 927943 (2002).
47
A change in propagation rate induces refraction.
48
The existence of the QV was derived from QM and is essential to QED.
49
Referred to as “gravitational lensing”.
46

36

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The key difference between interpretations is that the PV model describes the physical
manner by which space-time is “curved”, GR does not. However, neither GR nor the PV model
specifically addresses the precise mechanism by which matter physically polarises space-time.
Fortunately, the PV model is not required to do so because QED explains this mechanism based
upon the premise that within a volume of space-time devoid of matter, a chaotic and equally
distributed mix of virtual Electron-Positron particle pairs is said to “pop” into and out of existence.
1.7.3 Shaping the lens
The PV model asserts that matter polarises50 the QV into variable regions of energy density
which, in turn, generates regions of variable “KPV”. A well-developed precedent for the existence of
vacuum polarisation exists, based upon the generally accepted model of the Electron. The
contemporary model of the Electron stems from QED51, modelling it as a negatively charged point
core surrounded by a cloud of virtual particle pairs52, constantly emerging from and disappearing
into the QV.
The presence of the negatively charged core attracts the
virtual positive charges and repels the virtual negative charges
present in the vacuum, biasing the QV, resulting in a vacuum
gradient as it segregates clustered regions of virtual charges. In
this state the vacuum is no longer uniform – it has been polarised.
The effect of an Electron on the QV is termed “vacuum
polarisation” and the property of charge emerges due to a change
in the QVE distribution of the surrounding space-time. Thus, if the
QV is effervescent with virtual particle pairs, we must consider its
effect on all elementary particles, not just the Electron.
From the perspective of the PV model; matter polarises the QV, forming gravitational fields
because its atomic constituents are composed of countless numbers of elementary particles, all
generating their own localised polarisations of the vacuum such that the cumulative effect results in
a large-scale, synergistic polarisation. Conceptualising the space-time manifold in terms of vacuum
polarisation yields an isomorphic representation of GR. Moreover, the PV interpretation combined
with the QVIH advances a meaningful physical explanation for why matter experiences
gravitational and inertial force, whereas GR offers very little in this regard53.
In the PV model, matter generates a polarised gradient manifesting as a change in “KPV”
such that gravitational and inertial force is experienced whenever the QV appears asymmetrical.
Thus, if matter is capable of polarising the QVE distribution asymmetrically, then we immediately
understand why matter generates a gravitational field.
50

i.e. enforces direction and order.
http://Physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html: according to QED and the relativistic QFT of
the interaction of charged particles and Photons, an Electron may emit virtual Photons which, in
turn, may become virtual Electron-Positron pairs. The virtual Positrons are attracted to the “bare”
Electron whilst the virtual Electrons are repelled from it. The bare Electron is therefore screened
due to polarisation.
52
Hawking and Davies-Unruh radiation are also derived from the principle of virtual particle pair
formation.
53
Within GR, gravitational weight and inertial force are generated through a geometric manifold
defined by the geodesic paths of light in curved space-time. When an object deviates from the
geodesic topology of space-time, it experiences a force and energy input is required to affect the
deviation from the geodesic path. When an object accelerates or is held fixed in a gravitational field,
space-time appears curved and the object experiences a force. When the object moves with uniform
motion in flat space-time, or falls along the geodesic path in a curved manifold, space-time will
appear to be flat and no force will be experienced.
51

37

www.deltagroupengineering.com

When the optical effects of asymmetrical energy densities are considered, it is clear how the
PV state affects the propagation of light. As light enters an area of vacuum polarisation, it is
affected by the changing “KPV” and arcs towards the mass-object, as if it were passing through a
lens. The curved path resulting from the changing “KPV” is precisely congruent to the behaviour
predicted geometrically within GR.
1.7.4 Asymmetry, equilibrium and “KPV”
Three important features of the PV model incorporating the QVIH are,
i.
Gravitational and inertial forces arise due to QV asymmetry.
ii.
Mass-energy equilibrates to the local QVE density.
iii.
“KPV”.

QV asymmetry

The QV surrounding a mass-object exists in a state of asymmetrical energy polarisation such
that material objects equilibrate by falling with gravity. QV asymmetry is the reason why constant
acceleration requires energy input and why inertia is experienced during acceleration. Energy input
is required to maintain QV asymmetry; hence, once energy input ceases, the object’s motion
becomes uniform.

Mass-energy equilibration

As an object accelerates away from an observer to near light speed, it perceives an increase
in the local QVE density. From the perspective of the object, its mass-energy is invariant; however,
to the distant observer, the object’s mass-energy appears to increase as it absorbs mass-energy from
the local QV environment (i.e. the object equilibrates).

“KPV”

“KPV” may be conceptualised as an observed change in energy density; the greater the QV
asymmetry, the greater the observed change. “KPV” has a minimum permissible value of unity,
applicable to a mass-less observer performing measurements on an object from infinity.
1.7.5 Conflux
For the PV model to be isomorphic to GR54, “KPV” must consider the speed of light, length
contraction, mass scaling, frequency-shifts and time dilation. “KPV” is demonstrated to consider
these metrics for the distant stationary observer according to,

The speed of light
Light passing from a region of lower to higher “KPV” slows down and is refracted to
the region of higher “KPV”.
Length contraction
Objects equilibrate to the local QVE density, akin to the manner in which a balloon
is affected by atmospheric pressure. Thus, an object appears to contract as it
approaches light speed because the value of “KPV” appears to increase as the object55
equilibrates.

54

GR is based upon the trajectories of light through curved space-time relative to an observer; thus,
light (i.e. energy) is the basis for articulating gravitational effects and all metrics descriptive of
material objects (e.g. mass, size and time) are also subject to the motion of light.
55
Its length will not seem to change from its own perspective; however, the Universe will appear to
increase in energy.
38

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Mass scaling
Accelerating mass encounters inertial resistance56 due to disequilibrium between
itself and the local QVE density. Thus, it absorbs QVE57 and the value of “KPV”
appears to increase as the object equilibrates.
Frequency shifts
Light emitted by an object accelerating away at near light speed is measured as being
refracted by the space-time it moves through. The frequency of the light appears to
red-shift because the observer perceives the object as moving from a lower58 to
higher “KPV” value as the object equilibrates. The spectral shift is solely dependent
upon the relative difference between the “KPV” values of the observer and the object.
Time dilation
Time is a function of “KPV” because its value affects the propagation of light59. Thus,
an object moving from a lower to higher “KPV” value equilibrates and time is dilated.

We can now see how the “KPV” value of the QV is synonymous with the notion of “curved
space-time” in explaining the behaviour of objects accelerating or moving through gravitational
fields. Utilising an optical model of gravity, it is possible to understand the physical basis for the
conclusions derived within the metaphysical GR construct.
Note: a table of physical relationships involving “KPV” is articulated in a proceeding chapter.

56

i.e. QV asymmetry.
Hence, the object’s mass appears to increase.
58
i.e. the observer’s local value.
59
Within Relativity, the speed of light is constant; thus, time, mass and length simultaneously
change to compensate.
57

39

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2 Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)
2.1

Introduction

Electricity and Magnetism, once thought to be entirely disparate entities, have been unified
into a single set of interactions termed ElectroMagnetism. Physics has long considered the creation
of an all-encompassing “Theory of Everything” (ToE) to be its greatest and final purpose – to unify
gravity (i.e. GR) and ElectroMagnetism into a single relationship. Within GR, matter generates
“space-time curvature” directly affecting the propagation of EM energy and the motion of material
objects. As a beam of light transits through a gravitational field, its trajectory arcs in direct
response. The dynamic behaviour of EM energy in proximity to matter defines “space-time
curvature” which, in turn, defines the manner in which material objects interact with gravitational
fields.
The PV model of gravity asserts that the metaphysical concept of “space-time curvature”
may be replaced by an optical representation of QV polarisation. Thus, it follows that the formation
of gravitational fields are a result of QVE displacement due to the presence of matter. Recognising
that QVE is EM in composition, a fundamental relationship between matter, EM energy and gravity
is implied. This is described utilising a mathematical method termed Electro-Gravi-Magnetics
(EGM)60, developed from the application of standard engineering principles, modelling the manner
in which matter equilibrates with, and is constrained by, the local QV as a system.
2.2

Similitude

The initial premise in the development of the EGM method is the assumption that gravity
and ElectroMagnetism may be unified via QM in terms of the QV, utilising Buckingham “Π”
Theory (BPT). BPT is a well established and widely used engineering principle developed by Edgar
Buckingham in the early 1900’s. BPT is applied to simplify complex systems and determine which
parameters are necessary (or unnecessary) to adequately represent it. The Greek letter “Π” denotes
the formulation of dimensionless groups describing the system.
BPT is analogous to grammar and sentence structure. In this regard, the dimensionless “Π”
groups represent the words of the sentence and the grammatical structure and choice of words are
analogous to the equation best describing the system being analysed. For example, a single event
may be articulated many ways, utilising different words or combinations of words, placed in various
order, and yet still yield an adequate description of the event. There is no “right-or-wrong”
sentence, only one that best describes the event being observed. One may elect to recount a single
event quite differently from another person, or rephrase the details of one event in various ways.
However, the desired result remains unchanged; that the information is communicated adequately.
The BPT formalism affords an engineer the ability to phrase the dynamics of an
Experimental Prototype (EP) in multiple ways resulting in an equation describing the system
mathematically. Syntax provides the structural framework upon which concepts are communicated.
The basic rules of syntax permit a limited number of words to be arranged into a large number of
expressions. Syntax provides structure and meaning to language so that ideas are conveyed. BPT
provides the mathematical syntax upon which an equation may be constructed. No “right-or-wrong”
equation exists because an engineer designs one yielding a robust depiction of the EP. Parameters
may be included or removed from the construct until a mathematical model is formulated predicting
the outcome of a specific or generalised simulation.
BPT is utilised to model the behaviour of a whole system61 without requiring precise
interactional knowledge of all components simultaneously. For example, it is unnecessary to
60
61

A method derived from a single paradigm, cross-fertilising core physical concepts.
Particularly when scaling physical relationships to the size of benchtop EP’s.
41

www.deltagroupengineering.com

determine the motion of every water molecule in the ocean to adequately model or predict the
movement of a wave passing through it. BPT formulations are executed within the structural
framework of Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s), indicating that similar systems may be
described in like terms.
An important consideration involving DAT’s and BPT is the rule of “similitude”. In order to
compare a mathematical model to a physical system, certain criteria must be satisfied. The model
must have dynamic, kinematic or geometric similarity to the real-world system (any of, or all of
these if applicable). “Dynamic similarity” relates forces, “Kinematic similarity” relates motion62
and “Geometric similarity” relates shape63. Once the design principles of similitude are satisfied,
the mathematical model is considered applicable to the real-world system64.
DAT’s and BPT bring to the research and design table, the following key elements65:
• It helps to assess the reasonableness of a model and which variables it should
contain.
• It reduces the number of variables and parameters to a minimum.
• It reduces the number of needed experiments, on computers as well as in the
laboratory.
• It provides the fundamental theory behind experiments on scale models.
• It is a systematic method for the analysis of problems.
• It forces you to make estimates and to understand the problem.
• It helps you understand what is important and what is not.
• It produces dimensionless equations with small (or large) parameters.
The famed English Physicist, “Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor”, masterfully demonstrated how
DAT’s and BPT may be applied to develop mathematical predictions. Taylor accurately predicted
the energy released by the first atomic bomb detonated outside Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1945,
utilising declassified high-speed camera images of the explosion. Taylor surmised that the five
physical factors involved in the explosion were; its energy, the radius of the shockwave, the
atmospheric pressure and density acting to containing it, and the time associated with the shockwave’s expansion. These five physical terms only have three fundamental units (i.e. mass, length
and time). Therefore, only two dimensionless “Π” groupings are required to determine the energy
released.
2.3

Precepts and principles

Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering (the series) specifies the
development of a modelling approach termed EGM, articulating how gravitational fields may be
described in terms of ElectroMagnetism. EGM is an engineering approach66, not a theory; it is a
tool for mathematically simulating real-world systems in order to model physical problems in GR
and QM utilising standard engineering techniques. Gravity is the result of an interaction between
matter and the space-time manifold; leading to the following precepts,
i.
An object at rest polarises the QV surrounding it.
ii.
An object at rest is in equilibrium with the QV surrounding it.
iii.
The QVE67 surrounding an object at rest is equivalent to “E = mc2”.

62

Synonymous with the time domain.
i.e. the topology of space-time curvature within the context of GR.
64
Refer to a standard Engineering text for worked examples of DAT’s and BPT.
65
Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/kurs/matmod/1998h/
66
It is not “new Physics”.
67
i.e. gravitational field energy.
63

42

www.deltagroupengineering.com

iv.

The frequency distribution of the spectral energy density of the QV surrounding an
object at rest is cubic.

EGM is a mathematical modelling method considerate of standard control-systems
engineering philosophy. Control systems engineering is commonly applied to design cruise control
devices in cars and in general, any automated technology utilising feedback to maintain a steadystate. Subsequently, EGM regards material objects as being part of a matter-space-time system,
modelling the manner in which matter behaves in terms of energy exchange with its space-time
environment. EGM precepts state that the mass of any object at rest may be expressed as an
equivalent energy via “E = mc2” which, in turn, may be represented as a spectrum of EM energy.
The EGM method commences by mathematically representing mass as an equivalent
localised density of wavefunction energy, contained by the QV surrounding it. Properties of Fourier
harmonics are utilised to mathematically decompile the mass-energy into a spectrum of EM
frequencies. Mass-energy may be represented through principles of similitude as demonstrated by
“Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor” when he modelled the energy of an atomic bomb blast in the atmosphere.
He modelled the physical parameters of the atomic blast as an action-reaction dynamic between the
energy released and the surrounding environment acting to contain it.
The QV is predicted and required by QM and QED, both dictating that virtual energy must
exist within the fabric of space-time. The term “virtual” is applied because it refers the nebulous
boundary between existence and non-existence68. The EGM construct represents matter as a
precisely defined spectrum of EM energy utilising Fourier techniques and models its interaction
with the QV as a dynamic system. Subsequently, the unique spectral “signatures” of matter are
superimposed upon the QV demonstrating that a change in Poynting Vector69 (∆P) results in a
gravitational effect.
2.4

Gravity

All natural systems seek to find equilibrium; this implies that the energy condensed as matter
exists in a state of equilibrium within the Universe surrounding it. Consequently, EGM asserts that
mass is relativistic because it equilibrates to the ambient energy conditions of its local environment.
The methodology developed in QE3 determines the mass-energy equilibrium point between an
object and the space-time manifold such that the metaphysical conception of “curvature” is reinterpreted as being a local polarisation of the QV, explicable by the superposition of EM fields,
yielding a change in the Poynting Vector “∆P”.
The gradient in “P” is analogous to variations in the “KPV”70 value of the space-time
manifold in an optical model of gravity. An optical interpretation of gravity was first suggested
approximately three hundred years ago by Sir Isaac Newton in his treatise entitled Opticks. Newton
theorised that the aether should be most dense far away from an object like the Earth, and
conversely, more subtle and rarefied nearby or within it. Two passages from Newton’s Opticks
illustrate the optical model of gravity exceedingly well: [sic]
Qu. 20.
“Doth not this aetherial medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other
compact and dense bodies into empty spaces, grow denser and denser, by degrees, and by
that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curved
lines? And doth not the gradual condensation of this medium extend to some distance from
the bodies, and thereby cause the inflexions of the rays of light, which pass by the edges of
dense bodies, at some distance from the bodies?”
68

The origin and physical constitution of virtual energy is too complex to be describe herein and
has been omitted for brevity.
69
i.e. in the displacement domain.
70
Refer to preceding chapters.
43

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Qu. 21.
“Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and
comets, than in the empty celestial spaces between them? And in passing from them to
great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the
gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies;
every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?
For if this medium be rarer within the Sun’s body than at its surface . . . and rarer there
than at the orb of Saturn, I see no reason why the increase of density should stop
anywhere, and not rather be continued through all distances from the Sun to Saturn, and
beyond. And if the elastic force of this medium be exceedingly great, it may suffice to
impel bodies from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer, with all that power
which we call gravity.”71
Newton’s optical model of gravity has a contemporary equivalent known as the PV
Representation of GR – a title originally coined by Physicist H.E. Puthoff in 1994, based upon an
earlier body of work introduced by Harold Wilson and Robert Dicke in the 1950’s. The PV model
replaces the concept of “space-time curvature” with a variable “KPV” value induced by the
polarisation of the QV surrounding an object.
Newton wrote that a gradual change in the density of the aether curves paths of light.
Regional changes in “KPV” result in the refraction of light as though passing through a lens. The
EGM construct models vacuum polarisation by the superposition of mass-energy and QV spectra. A
key difference distinguishing mass-energy from QVE is that the energy contained within matter is
highly localised, whereas QVE is distributed homogeneously throughout the vast regions of freespace72.
Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (HRP) determined that the QV spectrum obeys a cubic frequency
distribution73. However, this presents a rather formidable dilemma. This type of distribution implies
that the energy density of empty space is staggering. Calculating the total energy represented by the
HRP interpretation suggests that every cubic centimetre of empty space is so packed full of energy
that it should cause the Universe to collapse in on itself.
Because of this theoretical result, many Physicists discount the existence of the QV in cubic
frequency form, believing that something must be fundamentally wrong with the derivation, despite
the fact that it is derived utilising standard QM. However, the EGM construct does not suffer from
this ailment and emphatically rejects the assertion that an infinite quantity of energy is contained
within the vanishing volume associated with the QM derivation of the QV74.
The physical justification for this emphatic rejection spawns from the derivation of the
present Hubble constant “H0” and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature
“T0” utilising the harmonic representation of fundamental particles75. “H0” and “T0” are measures of
Cosmological expansion since the instant of the “Big-Bang”. The Standard Model (SM) of
Cosmology (SMoC) determines “H0” by measuring the red-shifted light from receding galaxies as
they are pulled apart by the expanding fabric of space; “T0” is measured from the microwave
frequencies permeating space, representative of the residual high-energy radiation from the “BigBang” being stretched to the microwave frequency range by cosmic expansion.

71

Opticks. Sir Isaac Newton. Chicago, Encyclopaedia Britannica [1955, c1952] Book III, Part I
p.520-521.
72
i.e. flat space-time geometry.
73
i.e. the energy density of QV spectral modes increases to the cube of the frequency.
74
Please refer to the “Technical summary” section of this chapter for further information, or QE3
for rigorous mathematical verification.
75
See: the chapters titled “The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles” and “The Natural
Philosophy of the Cosmos” herein or QE3,4 for further information.
44

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The derivation of “H0” and “T0” within the EGM construct yields experimentally impressive
results, substantially beyond the abilities of the SMoC, without the “vanishing volume” implications
of QM; hence, the “emphatic rejection” asserted herein is substantiated. Applying EGM to the
energy dynamics of Hubble expansion spectrally, “H0” is derived by modelling the QV spectrum of
the “Primordial-Universe”76 as a single high-frequency wavefunction representing the energy of the
entire Universe.
Instantaneously after the “Big-Bang”, the single wavefunction rapidly decomposed into a
broad spectrum of lower-frequency wavefunctions, forming localised gradients through the
condensation of mass77. Summing the energy associated with all lower-frequency wavefunctions in
the present QV yields the total energy of the Universe, equalling the total energy at an instant prior
to the “Big-Bang”; hence, energy is conserved and the cubic frequency distribution of the QV
spectrum predicted by HRP is preserved78.
The QV spectrum of a geometrically flat Universe is described within the EGM construct by
a cubic frequency distribution, comprised of a large number of modes such that the terminating
spectral frequency approaches zero. Hence, the “infinite energy in a vanishing volume” problem
associated with the QM derivation of the QV spectrum does not exist under EGM, representing a
significant correction over contemporary assertions.
Setting the QV spectrum temporarily aside, we shall now define and describe the energy
spectrum associated with matter; termed “the EGM spectrum”. This is a wavefunction
representation of mass-energy obeying a Fourier distribution such that the number of modes
decreases as energy density increases79 (see: QE3), implying that the energy density of free-space
approaches zero, avoiding the “infinite energy in a vanishing volume” problem.
Consider the action of adding a point mass to an empty Universe. This action superimposes
the EGM spectrum of the point mass onto the QV spectrum of the Universe; doing so forms the PV
spectrum80 surrounding the point mass, inducing a mode population gradient in space-time between
the point mass and the edge of the Universe. The mode population gradient modifies the “KPV”
value of the vacuum such that it changes at the same rate as gravitational acceleration “g” from the
point mass. Thus, the gradient is “curved” in an analogous manner to space-time within GR.
The obvious question arising from the formation of the PV spectrum is; what induces the
modal population gradient?81 …. The nature of the Universe is to expand such that the energy
within it is “stretched out”. The process of expansion results in the bifurcation of the relatively few
high-frequency modes in proximity to the point mass, into a larger number of low-frequency modes
at the edge of the Universe. The Universe continually strives to reach its lowest energy state and
greatest stability, yet it never can; and in so doing, undergoes modal bifurcation.
A mass-object pushes the vacuum around it “uphill”, against the natural flux of expansion.
Mass may be modelled as doing work82 on the surrounding vacuum by “curving” it. This occurs
because the nature of the Universe is to expand and upon encountering resistance to its normal flux
76

i.e. instantaneously prior to the “Big-Bang”.
This is a mathematical representation of the spectral energy dynamic of the expansion model, not
a literal interpretation.
78
Although the cubic frequency distribution of the QV spectrum derived by HRP is physically
meaningful, their derivation implies that the energy density of the present Universe is greater than at
the time of the “Big-Bang”; when the spectral distribution could be defined by a relatively small
number of high-frequency (i.e. high energy) modes. Summing the many high-energy modes
comprising the HRP specification of the QV spectrum, yields an energy density value predicting
Cosmological collapse.
79
i.e. the number of modes is inversely proportional to the energy density of the space-time
manifold.
80
i.e. a quantised representation of the gravitational field.
81
i.e. why does the vacuum become polarised?
82
i.e. expending energy.
77

45

www.deltagroupengineering.com

from high to low energy, the Universe “pushes back” as it strives to find balance (i.e. equilibrium).
Thus, the matter-Universe interaction is a dynamic mass-energy-vacuum exchange system rather
than material inertly suspended in a vast expanse of nothingness.
EGM mathematically represents matter as radiating a spectrum of conjugate EM
frequencies. However, if we consider matter to radiate a spectrum of “Gravitons”83, the EGM
construct may be represented in quasi-physical form84 in equilibrium with its environment as a
system, such that Gravitons emerge as a vehicle for the feedback of information between the EGM
spectrum of matter and the QV spectrum of the local space-time manifold.
EGM considers the spectral energy of a gravitational field to be equivalent to the massenergy of the object generating the field, expressible in terms of a PV spectrum analogous to spacetime curvature within GR. It models each of the conjugate EM frequencies as two populations of
“conjugate Photon pairs”, i.e., each population is “180°” out of phase with its conjugate, consistent
with a Fourier harmonics representation of a constant function in complex form (see: QE3). A
conjugate Photon pair constitutes the definition of a Graviton within the EGM construct.
The density of Gravitons surrounding a mass-object is maximal nearby, gradually
decreasing with radial distance; thus, the greater the population density of Gravitons, the stronger
the gravitational field. These factors are consistent with the manner in which the PV spectrum is
defined via Fourier harmonics, resulting in a spectrum which increases in mode number with radial
distance from the mass-object85.
The tendency of the space-time manifold is to expand; however, the presence of matter
interrupts this movement, polarising the QV. Energy is required to alter its state to fewer modes of
higher frequency, counteracting the thermodynamic tendency of any system to move towards a state
of lowest energy and greatest stability. Subsequently, an observer held fixed within a QV gradient
senses that the mode energy is asymmetrical86 and based upon the QVIH, vacuum asymmetry
results in an apparent acceleration force on the observer, perceived as gravity.
Rather than a geometric curvature of nothingness, the manifestation of “g” is better
represented as back-pressure from the vacuum as mass-energy exerts its influence upon it. Anything
caught in the inward flow of space-time, so to speak, is pulled along with the current. EGM
represents this process as the superposition of two spectra, resulting in a mathematical description
of “g”, utilising Fourier harmonics. Thus, it may be stated that the EGM construct yields a
quantised description of gravity.
The EGM interpretation of gravity is akin to Newton’s conceptualisation of optical gravity.
According to Newton, the aether was presumed to be “denser” farther away from a mass-object and
“less dense” nearby. The change (i.e. gradient) in the density of the aether causes light and the
movements of objects through it, to follow trajectories characteristic of gravitational attraction. The
increasing density of Newton’s aether may be substituted with the analogous concept of increasing
mode population in the QV, proportional to the distance from a mass-object.
The denser the mass, the fewer modes it has in its PV spectrum because each mode within it
possesses higher energy (i.e. frequency). The modal bandwidth of the PV spectrum for a very dense
object is narrower than that of a less dense object. Hence, the more massive the object, the “steeper”
the gradient (i.e. change) in mode number between its centre of mass and the edge of the Universe,
resulting in gravitational acceleration proportional to mass87.

83

i.e. the elementary particles presumed to mediate gravitational force.
Science has yet to detect or rigorously define Gravitons; consequently, sufficient latitude exists to
interpret the Graviton in a manner suitable to the EGM construct.
85
i.e. QV mode number decreases with “Graviton” density.
86
i.e. higher in the direction of the centre of mass of an object and lower out in space.
87
EGM derives the Casimir Force from first principles, demonstrating that it differs depending on
the gravitational field strength of where it is measured. For example, EGM asserts that the strength
of the Casimir Force on Jupiter will be smaller than on the surface of the Moon (see: QE3).
84

46

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.5

Elementary particles

Particle-Physicists research often involves the act of smashing subatomic particles together
at near light-speed velocities and analysing the bewildering array of debris formed in the collision.
This process is commonly described as being similar to smashing two cars together and attempting
to determine how they worked by analysing the pieces. The discipline of Particle-Physics is also
referred to as High-Energy Physics (HEP). This term is also applied because the particles resulting
from such collisions are only able to exist in extremely high energy environments.
Subatomic particles often only exist as interlinked components of another greater particle
system and not as free entities in and of themselves. They often only exist when we cause them to
exist. At the instant of a particle collision, each particle’s total kinetic energy and thus its mass, has
been greatly amplified. However, the subatomic particle products generated in the collision may
only be measured (or even be generated in the first place) by having increased the energy of the
environment in which the parent particles are smashed together.
A Proton is composed of three Quark subunits; however, Quarks themselves are not known
to exist as free Quarks. The configuration of the Proton system acts as a boundary condition,
containing the Quarks in a composite form called the “Proton”. Extremely high energies are thus
required to smash Protons into their individual Quark constituents and the Quarks released in the
collision can only exist freely for an extremely brief period of time88. The energy of any object,
whether particle or otherwise, is equilibrated by the ambient energy in its local environment.
However, only when equilibrium is artificially shifted, as occurs in a high energy collision, is the
energy balance destabilised sufficiently to allow high-energy Quarks to exist autonomously for a
brief moment.
Shortly after the “Big-Bang”, the Universe was a soup of free Quarks in a hot and dense
environment. In the first moments after the “Big-Bang”, the total energy of the early Universe was
much more densely packed than it is today. These Quarks could exist freely in the early Universe
because the ambient energy density allowed them to exist in this more energetic form. When
particles are accelerated to extremely high energies in a collider, we are re-creating the dense
energy conditions of the early Universe and free particles exist for a brief period89.
EGM models the energy-density environmental equilibrium dynamics of systems, where
matter is affected by ambient conditions, by mathematically decomposing its mass-energy into an
“EGM spectrum” of frequencies utilising Fourier harmonics. This is a mathematical construct only,
modelling the system as a whole, not specifically intended to be taken as physically representative.
Nevertheless, the process of mathematically translating units of mass into spectral information
articulates the equilibrium between matter and the QV, yielding a natural harmonic relationship
between all subatomic particles.
Note: where appropriate, due to the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the law of
conservation of energy90, the EGM spectrum may also be referred to as the PV spectrum.
The PV spectrum is derived as a representation of mass-energy density equilibration such
that spectral characteristics differ from object to object; e.g., the Proton possesses a lower harmonic
mode population and higher harmonic cut-off91 frequency than a star [see: Fig. (2.1, 2.2)]. However,
the PV spectra of fundamental particles may be characterised by their harmonic cut-off frequency
such that they may be represented as harmonic multiples of an arbitrarily selected reference particle.
88

i.e. until energy conditions return to normal.
As the Universe continued to expand and cool, its energy density decreased, subsequently
permitting the condensation of composite particles such as the Proton and Neutron, followed by
even more complex, low-energy composites (i.e. the atom) as the energy density decreased further.
90
In terms of equilibration.
91
Spectral limit.
89

47

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Based upon this harmonic principle of order, a periodic table of subatomic particles may be
formulated [see: Tab. (4.5)] mirroring the hierarchical basis upon which the chemical elements are
arranged.
Note: the harmonic pattern is derived by considering all matter to be radiators of populations of
conjugate Photon pairs92, suggesting that the quintessential building-block of all atoms, chemical
elements, molecules and material forms in the Cosmos is the Photon – energy itself!
2.6

Cosmology

EGM represents a single paradigm which may be applied to precisely derive Cosmological
measurements such as “H0” and93 “T0”. The EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles
serves to validate and substantiate the evolutionary epochs of our Universe, as science has come to
understand them, since the time of the “Big-Bang”.
The Planck blackbody radiation phenomenon demonstrates that matter radiates a spectrum
of EM radiation based upon its temperature. This principle of spectral information is mirrored by
the EGM construct because the PV spectra of mass-objects are generated by Fourier harmonics.
That is to say, each PV spectrum is a mathematical decomposition of the gravitational energy of a
mass-object into its cognate spectrum of harmonic frequencies.
“Wien’s displacement law” describes the relationship between the temperature of an object
and its blackbody radiation spectrum. Comparing hot and cold objects, we see that the blackbody
spectrum for each object type possesses identical shape; depicting peak Photon prevalence at a
specific frequency range, trailing off at the high and low spectral limits. Differences in peak
emission frequencies obey a scaling factor relationship defined by Wien’s displacement law.
(Right) Blackbody radiation curves depicting spectra from
objects of varying temperature. Wien’s displacement law
describes the relationship between peak emissions (in
wavelength) vs. prevalence of Photons (Y-axis) according
to temperature (T).
When we directly measure the temperature of empty space,
we are in-fact measuring the residual energy from the “Big-Bang”.
The temperature of empty space is approximately “2.7(K)” such
that the Planck blackbody radiation wavelength is about “1(mm)”
(i.e. within the microwave frequency range of the EM spectrum).
At Bell Laboratories in 1964, while working with a large horn antenna designed for Radio
Astronomy and satellite communications, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered a
ubiquitous white-noise that could not be eliminated. It was audible day and night in all directions,
falling within the microwave frequency range. What Penzias and Wilson heard with their antenna
was the radiation left over from the birth of our Universe! The discovery of “T0” earned Penzias and
Wilson the Nobel Prize in 1978.
The physical detection and measurement of “T0” was momentous because at the time of its
discovery, the “Big-Bang” model of cosmic history was merely conjecture. The idea emerged from
Hubble’s observation that the Universe was apparently expanding in all directions. It was presumed
that it should be possible to trace this expansion back in time when all the matter and energy in the
Universe was packed together in a much denser form. However, in the intervening decades between
92

The majority of energy contained within a PV spectrum occurs at the spectral limit; hence, the
spectrum may be usefully approximated by a single conjugate wavefunction pair at the harmonic
cut-off frequency. See: the chapter herein titled “The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles”
or QE3 for further information.
93
It is demonstrated that “T0” may be derived from “H0”.
48

www.deltagroupengineering.com

the time Hubble expansion was discovered and “T0” was measured94, the “Big-Bang” model was by
no means on solid ground. The favourable pairing of prediction and observation meant that, as
strange as it may seem, our Universe must have suddenly burst into being as if from nowhere. The
Universe could no longer be considered as a timeless, “steady-state” Universe, but was instead
finite – having a beginning (and perhaps an end).
EGM models mass-objects as being in equilibrium with the QV such that the energy state of
matter describes the energy state of the vacuum. Hence, “H0” and “T0” represent observational
evidence of Cosmological mass-energy equilibration. Invoking principles of similitude, “H0” is
derived by relating the PV spectrum of a “Planck-Particle”95 to the present-day utilising the “MilkyWay” Galaxy as a basis for comparison. Within the EGM construct, a “Planck-Particle” denotes the
condition of maximum permissible energy density, representing the Universe compacted to a point.
As mass-energy density increases, the PV modal bandwidth compresses such that for a “PlanckParticle”, the PV spectrum converges into a single mode approaching the Planck Frequency.
Galaxies are homogeneously distributed throughout the Universe and are “approximately” in
the same stage of evolution. Hence, it follows that we may utilise our own “Milky-Way” Galaxy as
a universal reference to yield an average value of Cosmological gravitational intensity. Utilising
astronomical estimates of total galactic mass and radius, we may represent the “Milky-Way” as a
“particle” at the centre of the galaxy, termed the “Galactic Reference Particle” (GRP). The radiant
gravitational intensity of the GRP may be calculated from its PV spectral limit. The GRP is
representative of the total mass-energy density and vacuum equilibrium state of the Universe at the
present time96; as viewed by instrumentation within our solar system. Thus, “H0” is derived by
comparing the “Planck-Particle Universe” at the instant of creation to the GRP; facilitated by
utilisation of the harmonic representation of fundamental particles.
“T0” is derived from “H0”; relating the Cosmological expansion of the primordial “PlanckParticle Universe” to the GRP yields an expansive scaling factor “KT”. Subsequently, Wien’s
displacement law is applied to determine a thermodynamic scaling factor “TW” quantifying the
manner in which Photons radiated at the instant of the “Big-Bang” have red-shifted to the
microwave range after Hubble time. The microwave frequency is converted to temperature by
relating “KT” and “TW”, producing a value of “T0” precisely matching measurement!
The EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles facilitates the articulation of the
Hubble constant since the instant of the “Big-Bang” to the present day. The resulting history of the
CMBR temperature corroborates with all epochs of cosmic evolution as predicted by the SMoC.
The theory of early “cosmic inflation” is reinforced and the recently measured “accelerated
expansion” is derived. Cosmic inflation is an epoch thought to have occurred within the first
fractions of an instant after the “Big-Bang”.
Note: the Cosmological inflation and accelerated expansion phenomena emerge naturally within
the EGM construct and are not presumed “a priori” as part of the modelling process.
Cosmic inflation was originally introduced to the SMoC as a requisite so that the “BigBang” theory “fits” observational evidence. Without this inflationary epoch, the Universe would not
exist as observed; it would be flat and featureless, with no clumps of matter and would be so small
today that the entire Universe, after billions of years, would fit on the head of a pin. However, the
EGM construct generates the inflationary epoch from first principles, derived from Particle-Physics!

94

Representing the red-shifted (i.e. stretched-out) Photons of the early Universe; the EM waves we
observe today, were once extremely high-frequency Photons moments after Cosmological creation.
Billions of years later, those Photons have become stretched by cosmic expansion to such a degree
that now they are approximately “1(mm)” in wavelength.
95
Representing the Universe at the instant of the “Big-Bang”.
96
As one homogeneous “piece” of the Cosmos.
49

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Scientists wondered whether there might be enough matter in the Universe to halt cosmic
expansion, causing the Universe to meet its end in a “Big Crunch”. However, Astronomers were
vexed to discover that the Universe is actually accelerating at a rate exceeding predictions. The
discrepancy between prediction and observation within the SMoC is so vast, that Cosmologists
invented the concepts of “dark energy” and “dark matter” to make sense of the findings. Our best
measurements of expansion are so far from the predicted value that theorists estimate “72(%)” of
the Universe must be composed of dark energy and “23(%)” must be dark matter, meaning that
“95(%)” of our Universe exists in an unknown and unobservable form!
According to observation, it is thought that a substantial portion of matter is “missing”
because of the peculiar manner in which galaxies rotate. Instead of rotating fastest in the centre and
slower at the periphery, the spiral arms of galaxies rotate about the central axis at the same rate as
the stars near the centre. This suggests that “something” must be present in undetectable halos
surrounding galaxies. Thus, dark matter has been contrived to explain why galaxies rotate
uniformly.
Similarly, dark energy has been contrived to explain why the Universe continues to expand
at an accelerated rate, despite the addition of dark matter to the SMoC. Not withstanding “dark +
visible” matter, the remainder of the Universe is thought to be in the form of an energy field
inducing negative pressure in the space-time manifold, counteracting gravity on a very large scale,
causing intergalactic voids of space-time to expand like giant balloons.
Even though the cosmic inflation epoch is also a contrivance introduced to fit a theory,
EGM substantiates its existence because it emerges as a natural consequence of the derivation of
“H0” and “T0”. However, the existence of dark energy / matter must be questioned due to the fact
that the EGM method requires no contrivances in order to predict “H0”, “T0” and Cosmological
inflation / accelerated expansion, without invoking dark matter or energy; producing results
substantially more precise than the SMoC97.
We have come full circle, from alpha to omega and back, uncovering physical proof for
what the Pythagoreans and ancient Babylonians hypothesised millennia ago. We appreciate the
stark beauty of the “Laws of Cosmic Harmony” which Pythagoras exhorted with such passion. We
hold substantive evidence that authenticates the philosophical beliefs of our ancient scientific
predecessors, who contemplated and understood the Cosmos to be more than a “void” in which
matter resides. Their Cosmos encompassed all forms in the Universe, from the miniscule to
immense, both living and inert; it was an expression of the “Laws of Musical Proportion” and
“sympathetic affinity” connecting all things.
NOTES

97

Within the EGM construct, the contribution of dark matter / energy to the Cosmological model is
shown to be “< 1(%)”.
50

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.7

Technical summary

2.7.1 Synopsis





Applicable definitions,
Quantum Vacuum (QV): a quantum representation of the space-time manifold within GR.
Quantum-Vacuum-Energy (QVE): the spectral energy associated with the QV.
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF): the QV field associated with globally flat space-time geometry.
However, such a configuration cannot physically exist; thus, the ZPF takes the form of a
generalised reference to the QV field throughout the “Quinta Essentia” series (i.e. QE2-4).
Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE): the spectral energy associated with the ZPF.
Polarisable Vacuum (PV): a polarised representation of the ZPF.
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM): a theoretical relationship between EM fields and “g”.

We shall outline the method developed in QE2-4 to describe “g” in harmonised terms,
yielding new predictions and highly precise experimentally verified results beyond the Standard
Models (SM’s) of Particle-Physics and Cosmology. The EGM construct derives (see: QE3):
i. A harmonic representation of gravitational fields at a mathematical point arising from
geometrically spherical objects of uniform mass-energy distribution using modified
Complex Fourier series.
ii. Characteristics of the amplitude spectrum based upon (i).
iii. Derivation of the Fundamental harmonic frequency based upon (i).
iv. Characteristics of the frequency spectrum of an implied ZPF based upon (i) and the
assumption that an EM relationship exists over a change in displacement across a
practical benchtop test volume.
The derivational procedure obeys the following hierarchy,
v. A harmonic representation of “g” is developed.
vi. The frequency spectrum of (v) is derived by application of Buckingham “Π” Theory
(BPT) and dimensional similarity.
vii. The ZPF energy density is related to (vi) based upon the assumption that engineered EM
changes in “g” may be produced across the dimensions of a practical benchtop test
volume.
viii. Spectral characteristics of the PV98 are derived based upon (vii).
ix. A description of physical modelling criteria is presented.
x. A set of sample calculations and illustrational plots are presented.
Fourier series99 may be applied to represent a periodic function as a trigonometric
summation of sine and cosine terms. It may also be applied to represent a constant function over an
arbitrary period by the same method. Since the PV model is (historically) a weak field isomorphic
approximation of GR and the frequency spectrum is postulated to range from negative to positive
infinity, it follows that Fourier series represent a useful tool by which to describe gravity.
Time domain modelling may be applied over the displacement domain of a practical
benchtop test volume by considering the relevant changes over the dimensions of that volume.
Constant functions may be expressed as a summation of trigonometric terms; subsequently, it is
convenient to model a gravitational field utilising modified Complex Fourier series according to an
odd number harmonic distribution. Hence, “g” may be usefully represented by the magnitude of a
periodic square wave solution as the number of waves utilised to describe it, approaches infinity,
It is demonstrated in QE3 that dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle may be
applied to represent the magnitude of an acceleration vector such that an expression for the
98

Refer to the section titled “The PV Model of Gravity” for a complete description.
A Fourier series representation of a constant function involves the hybridisation of amplitude and
frequency spectra (i.e. a Fourier distribution contains two embedded spectra).
99

51

www.deltagroupengineering.com

frequency spectrum is derived in terms of harmonic mode. This is achieved by assuming that
ElectroMagnetically induced acceleration is dynamically, kinematically and geometrically similar
to “g” as constructed by Fourier series wave summation.
The gravitational field surrounding a homogeneous solid spherical mass may be
characterised by its energy density. If the magnitude of this field is directly proportional to the
mass-energy density of the object, then the field energy density of the PV may be evaluated over the
difference between successive odd frequency modes. The reason for this is due to the mathematical
properties of Fourier series for constant functions. For such cases – as appears in standard texts, the
summed contribution of all even modes equals zero. Subsequently, only odd mode contributions
need be considered when modelling a constant function.
Utilising the approximate rest mass-energy density of a solid spherical object, an expression
relating the terminating harmonic cut-off mode may be derived by assuming that the equivalent
quantity of mass-energy within an object is also stored in the gravitational field surrounding it.
Subsequently, the upper boundary of the frequency spectrum, termed the harmonic cut-off
frequency, may be calculated; the derivation is based upon the compression of energy density of the
“random ZPF form” to one change in odd harmonic mode whilst preserving dynamic, kinematic
and geometric similarity in accordance with BPT.
The compressed “random ZPF form” is subsequently decompressed over the Fourier domain
(assigning structure), yielding a highly precise reciprocal harmonic representation of “g”;
preserving dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity to the Newtonian, PV and GR
representations. The cross-fertilisation of the amplitude and frequency characteristics of a constant
function described by Fourier series with the ZPF spectral energy density distribution derived by
Haisch and Rueda, is a useful tool by which to determine the spectral characteristics of the PV
representation of GR (proposed by Puthoff) at the surface of the Earth (for example) by assuming,
xi. The PV physically exists as a spectrum of frequencies and wave vectors.
xii. The sum of all PV wave vectors at the surface of the Earth is coplanar with the
gravitational acceleration vector. This represents the only vector of practical experimental
consequence.
xiii. A modified Complex Fourier series representation of “g” is representative of the
magnitude of the resultant PV wave vector.
xiv. A physical relationship exists between Electricity, Magnetism and Gravity such that “g”
may be investigated and modified.
Therefore, we may summarise the solution algorithm constituting the harmonically based
EGM construct by five simple steps as follows,
xv. Apply Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's), BPT and similarity principles to
combine Electricity, Magnetism and resultant EM acceleration in the form of “Π”
groupings.
xvi. Apply the equivalence principle to the “Π” groupings formed in (xv).
xvii. Apply Fourier Harmonics to the equivalence principle.
xviii. Apply ZPF Theory100 to Fourier Harmonics.
xix. Apply the PV model of gravity to the ZPF.
Within the EGM construct, the Poynting Vector “P” represents the propagation of energy
(i.e. conjugate Photon pairs, see: QE3), radially outwards from the centre of mass; however, “g” is
the result of the change in “P” (i.e. “∆P”) between two points in the displacement domain. This
may appear counter-intuitive since “P” propagates away from the centre of mass, but “g” is a
consequence of “∆P” not “P”. A “∆P” arises due to the superposition of the “P” field upon the ZPF.
The ZPF acts to constrain the “P” field, yielding “g” as predicted by Newtonian mechanics and GR.

100

See also: ZPF equilibrium as described in the chapter titled “The Natural Philosophy of
Fundamental Particles”.
52

www.deltagroupengineering.com

This principle may be demonstrated by a simple example; let the value of “P” at positive
radial displacements from a mass-object “r1” and “r2” be given by the positive values “P1” and “P2”
respectively. Hence, if “r2 > r1” then “P2 < P1” because “P2 → 0” as “r2 → ∞” such that the
difference between “P1” and “P2” is negative [i.e. “(∆P = P2 – P1) < 0”], indicating that “g” acts
towards the centre of mass and opposite to the direction of propagation of “P”.
“P” represents the propagation of spectral mass-energy equivalence in the form of
populations of conjugate Photon pairs. An equilibrium gradient in the displacement domain arises
due to the mathematical interaction between the mass-energy and ZPF spectra, equivalent to spacetime curvature under GR because the intensity of “P” varies congruently with “g”. Hence, the radial
gradient in “P” is analogous to variations in the Refractive Index of the space-time manifold in an
optical model of gravity.
2.7.2 The QV spectrum
Historically, the QV has been considered to be composed of a near infinite spectrum of
randomly orientated wave functions, each of specific frequency and amplitude, analogous to the
static one observes on a dead television channel. However, the EGM construct disagrees with this
historical conception as it implies the existence of a near infinite quantity of energy in a vanishing
volume (i.e. free space contains a near infinite amount of energy).
EGM asserts that the QV is more appropriately described as a finite spectrum whose wave
function population is determined by the quantity of mass-energy occupying a specific volume (i.e.
free space contains a near zero amount of energy). Subsequently, the QV spectrum may be
characterised by the following statements,
xx. It is a generalised reference to a quantum description of the space-time manifold.
xxi. In flat space-time geometries, it transforms to the ZPF spectrum.
xxii. In curved geometries (i.e. gravitational fields), it transforms to the PV spectrum.
Note: a vanishing volume containing infinite energy does not exist within the EGM construct.
2.7.3 The EGM spectrum
The EGM spectrum is a harmonic description of mass-energy represented as conjugate EM
wavefunction pairs; incrementally above “ω = 0(Hz)”, tending to the Planck Frequency “ωh” and
obeying a Fourier distribution. Key generalised spectral features are,
xxiii. It is discrete and harmonically continuous “–ωh ← ω → +ωh”.
xxiv. The terminating frequency is a harmonic multiple of the fundamental (i.e. lowest freq.).
xxv. Each wavefunction represents a population of Photons such that each conjugate Photon
pair constitutes a Graviton.
xxvi. Where appropriate, due to the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the law of
conservation of energy101, it may also be referred to as the PV spectrum.
2.7.4 The ZPF spectrum
The ZPF spectrum may be partially described by its contrast to the EGM spectrum. The
EGM spectrum relates the mass of an object to the gravitational field surrounding it utilising
Fourier harmonics; hence, it is “somewhat localised”. However, the energy of the ZPF is dispersed
homogenously throughout the Universe.
The historical conception of the ZPF implies the existence of a near infinite quantity of
energy in a vanishing volume (i.e. free space contains a near infinite amount of energy).
101

i.e. the mass-energy within an object is energetically equivalent to the gravitational field
surrounding the object.
53

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Fortunately, EGM resolves this conflict such that a vanishingly small volume of flat space-time
does not contain an infinite amount of energy. This is achieved by merging the continuous cubic
frequency characteristic of the ZPF with a discrete and finite Fourier distribution such that,
xxvii. The number of harmonic modes approaches infinity.
xxviii. The highest frequency tends to zero.
A determination of available ZPF energy is demonstrated in the chapter titled “The Natural
Philosophy of the Cosmos” where it is shown that (i), the average value of ZPF energy density
“UZPF” throughout the Universe may be stated as “UZPF < –2.52 x10-13(Pa)” and (ii), the gradient of
the Hubble constant in the time domain is presently positive102. Hence,
On a human scale, this translates to levels of ZPF energy according to,
xxix. “< –252(yJ/mm3)”: where, “yJ = 10-24(Joule)” and “mm = millimetre”.
On an astronomical scale, this becomes,
xxx. “< –0.252(mJ/km3)”: where, “mJ = 10-3(Joule)” and “km = kilometre”.
xxxi. “< –7.4 x1012(YJ/pc3)”: where, “YJ = 1024(Joule)” and “pc = parsec”.
On a Cosmological scale, this becomes,
xxxii. “< –6.6 x1041(YJ/RU3)”: where, “RU” denotes the Hubble size of the visible Universe by
the EGM method (i.e. “RU ≈ 14.58 Billion Light Years”).
Note: although on the human scale the quantity of ZPF energy is trivial, on the astronomical or
Cosmological scale, it becomes extremely large when approaching the dimensions of the visible
Universe.
2.7.5 The PV spectrum
The PV spectrum may be formulated by merging the EGM and ZPF spectral distributions.
Energy condensed as mass is finite; representing a small fraction of the total energy in the Universe.
The finite parameters of matter dictate the form that the mass-energy spectrum will take. The
resulting harmonic description is termed the PV spectrum.
PV spectral formation may be conceptualised by considering a Universe populated by a
singular spherical object of homogeneous mass-energy density. When such an object is added to an
empty Universe, the EGM spectrum of the object is superimposed upon the background ZPF
spectrum. Merging the EGM and ZPF spectra results in the cross-fertilisation of characteristics; the
complete mathematical derivation is contained in QE3. Descriptions of the specific mathematical
events required are as follows,
xxxiii. Integrate the HRP spectral energy density equation over the frequency domain “ω”: [see:
Eq. (3.47, 3.293)].
xxxiv. Recognise that, for any Fourier summation resulting in a constant function, only odd
harmonic modes are required due to the null summation of even modes. This is a
fundamental property of Fourier mathematics and should not be dismissed103.
xxxv. Formulate an expression for the change in energy density with respect to odd harmonics,
in terms of “ω”, utilising the integrated HRP spectral energy density equation [see: Eq.
(3.294)].
xxxvi. Substitute the harmonic frequency “ωPV” relationship [see: Eq. (3.67)] into Eq. (3.294).
xxxvii. Solving appropriately, one obtains the harmonic cut-off mode and frequency (i.e. “nΩ”
and “ωΩ” respectively). “nΩ” denotes the highest harmonic mode contained in the merged
spectra (i.e. the PV spectrum) and “ωΩ” represents the terminating spectral frequency
relative to a fundamental value (i.e. its lowest permissible magnitude).

102
103

Facilitating an explanation of the “accelerated Cosmological expansion” phenomenon.
Refer to any standard text for further information regarding Fourier techniques.
54

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Hence, all required attributes have been derived to completely describe “g” in harmonic
terms. The next step is to understand how the EGM method produces a PV spectrum such that the
“infinite energy” dilemma of ZPF Theory (derived by contemporary QM methods), is averted. The
deductive reasoning may be articulated as follows,
xxxviii. The HRP derivation implies that the majority of ZPE exists at the spectral limit104.
xxxix. Assume that the ZPE at an arbitrary mathematical point in the space-time manifold is
constant such that the associated spectrum may be described harmonically relative to the
magnitude of “some” fundamental frequency at the point under consideration.
xl. The Fourier characteristics of a constant function demonstrate that only odd harmonic
modes are required for summation.
xli. Principles of equivalence and similitude imply that the highest spectral transition of odd
harmonic mode may be utilised in the representation of the total localised ZPE.
xlii. Assume that the mass-energy density of an object is equal to the spectral energy density
of the gravitational field surrounding it.
xliii. Integrating the HRP spectral energy density relationship yields the total ZPE, which may
be expressed locally as a narrow high-frequency bandwidth of equivalent energy.
Equating this result to the mass-energy density of an object yields the PV spectrum
surrounding it, preserving similitude.
Therefore, when the EGM and ZPF spectra are merged, the continuous ZPF spectrum is
compressed and equated to the Fourier distribution of the EGM spectrum such that the resulting PV
spectrum is a decompressed form of the merged spectra and the properties of its spectral limits may
be determined. This process mathematically transforms the continuous ZPF spectrum to a discrete
and finite Fourier distribution of equivalent energy. Thus, as radial displacement “r” at a
mathematical point from a mass-object increases,
xliv. Gravitational field strength decreases.
xlv. Spectral energy density decreases.
xlvi. The number of harmonic modes increases (i.e. bifurcation).
xlvii. Greater numbers of modes are required to be summed for energetic equivalence.
The EGM interpretation of Gravity is similar to Newton’s thoughts of an optical model such
that the aether was presumed to be “denser” farther away. The gradient in aether density causes
light and objects to follow trajectories characteristic of GR. EGM demonstrates that the increasing
density of Newton’s aether is analogous to increases in mode population in the PV spectrum.
Hence, the PV is an EM frequency spectrum obeying a Fourier distribution at displacement “r”
describing a mass “M” induced gravitational field such that,
xlviii. It denotes a polarised form of the ZPF spectrum105.
xlix. The population of spectral modes “nΩ(r,M)” decreases as mass increases.
l. Maximum spectral frequency “ωΩ(r,M)” increases as mass increases.
li. The fundamental spectral frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)” increases as mass increases.
lii. Spectral frequency bandwidth106 increases as mass increases.
Sample calculations107,
ωPV(1,r,M) Hz
ωPV(1,RE,M0) → 0
ωPV(1,RE,MM) ≈ 0.008

ωΩ(r,M) YHz
ωΩ(RE,M0) → 0
ωΩ(RE,MM) ≈ 196

nΩ(r,M)
nΩ(RE,M0) → ∞
nΩ(RE,MM) ≈ 2.4x1028

104

i.e. low frequency energy contribution is comparatively trivial.
Mass pushes the ZPF surrounding it “uphill”, against the natural flux of space-time manifold
expansion.
106
i.e. the difference in magnitude between the highest and lowest frequencies “∆ωPV”.
107
The radius of the Earth “RE” has been applied as a standard unit of measure for demonstration
purposes only.
105

55

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ωPV(1,RE,ME) ≈ 0.0358 ωΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 520
ωPV(1,RE,MJ) ≈ 0.2445 ωΩ(RE,MJ) ≈ 2x103
ωPV(1,RE,MS) ≈ 2.4841 ωΩ(RE,MS) ≈ 9x103
Table 3.17,
where, “YHz = 1024 (Hz)”.
Variable
r
RE
M0
MM, ME, MJ, MS

nΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 1.5x1028
nΩ(RE,MJ) ≈ 7.6x1027
nΩ(RE,MS) ≈ 3.5x1027

Description
Magnitude of position vector relative to the centre of mass
Radius of the Earth
Zero mass condition of free space
Mass of the Moon, Earth, Jupiter and the Sun respectively
Table 2.1,

Units
m
kg

2.7.6 The EGM, PV and ZPF spectra
The difference between the EGM, PV and ZPF spectra is that the EGM spectrum
commences incrementally above “0(Hz)” and approaches the Planck Frequency. The PV spectrum
is mass specific and represents a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum commencing at a non-zero
fundamental frequency. The EGM and PV spectra follow a Fourier distribution, whereas the ZPF
spectrum possesses the same frequency bandwidth of the EGM spectrum, but does not follow a
Fourier distribution. Thus, the EGM spectrum is the polarised form of the ZPF spectrum, whilst the
PV spectrum is an object specific subset of the EGM spectrum following a Fourier distribution.
Note: the EGM spectrum is a simple, but extreme, extension of the EM spectrum.
2.7.7 The Casimir Effect
The Casimir Effect108 demonstrates that when small distances separate two flat neutral metal
plates, Photons in the PV field with wavelengths larger than the plate separation distance are
excluded from the spatial cavity, resulting in an attractive force between the plates due to the bias in
vacuum energy across the system109. Gravity, in this regard, is analogous to a long-range Casimir
effect because EGM asserts that mass induced gravitational effects may be described by changes in
mode population across a region of space.
The EGM construct was applied in QE3 to derive the Casimir Force from first principles,
demonstrating that it differs depending upon ambient gravitational field strength! For example, the
Casimir Force will be slightly different on Earth than Jupiter or the Moon. QE3 states that,
liii. “…. an Earth based equivalent Casimir experiment conducted on Jupiter will exclude
fewer low frequency modes – preserving higher frequency modes that simply pass
through the plates, resulting in a smaller Casimir Force. By contrast, the same
experiment conducted on the Moon will produce a larger Casimir Force.”
liv. “…. a Casimir Experiment conducted in free space will produce an extremely small force
(tending to zero) due to the lack of initial background field pressure. Since the Casimir
Force arises from a pressure imbalance, the lack of significant ambient field pressure
between the plates110 prevents the formation of large Casimir Forces.”

108

Presently, it is only experimentally confirmed to exist in gravitational fields (i.e. PV fields).
“The Effect” has not been physically verified in flat space-time geometries (i.e. the free-space
“0g”condition).
109
i.e. the vacuum energy density is lower between the plates.
110
i.e. in and around the experimental zone.
56

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.7.8 Comparative spectra
EGM bandwidth comparisons of PV spectra associated with physical categories of objects
may be formulated and represented graphically based upon ZPF equilibria. Determination of the
ZPF equilibrium radius of subatomic particles is a sophisticated process, summarised herein by the
chapter titled “The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles”. A complete and rigorous
derivation is presented in QE3.
Note: the ZPF equilibrium radius of astronomical bodies coincides with the mean radius (see:
QE3), representing the mathematical boundary (within EGM) delineating mass composition and the
gravitational field surrounding it.
Utilising the EGM construct, the HRP spectral energy density equation with cubic frequency
distribution [see: Eq. (3.47)] may be graphically categorised into four regions (i.e. zones), these are;
“Planck-Scale” energy densities, “Particle-Physics”, “Astro-Physics” and “Cosmology”, subject to
the following generalised characteristics [see: Fig. (2.1, 2.2)],
lv. Planck Scale energy densities111 [see: QE4]
• Narrowband high-frequency spectrum.
• Narrowband modal spectrum.
lvi. Particle-Physics112 [see: Tab. (2.4)]
• Broadband high-frequency spectrum.
• Narrowband modal spectrum.
lvii. Astro-Physics [see: Tab. (2.2)]
• Moderateband113 high-frequency spectrum.
• Moderateband modal spectrum.
lviii. Cosmology [see: Tab. (2.6, 2.7)]
• Narrowband low-frequency spectrum.
• Broadband modal spectrum.
To demonstrate these characteristics in tabular form, the PV frequency and modal
bandwidths (“∆ωPV” and “∆nPV” respectively) are given by,
∆ωPV(r,M) = ωΩ(r,M) – ωPV(1,r,M)

(2.1)

where, “ωΩ(r,M) >> ωPV(1,r,M)” hence “∆ωPV(r,M) ≈ ωΩ(r,M)” and:
∆nPV(r,M) = nΩ(r,M) – 1

(2.2)

where, “nΩ(r,M) >> 1” hence “∆nPV(r,M) ≈ nΩ(r,M)”.
Sample results,
Astronomical Object
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun

∆ωPV(r,M) YHz
∆ωPV(RM,MM) ≈ 403
∆ωPV(RE,ME) ≈ 520
∆ωPV(RJ,MJ) ≈ 488
∆ωPV(RS,MS) ≈ 646
Table 2.2,

∆nPV(r,M)
∆nPV(RM,MM) ≈ 8.6x1027
∆nPV(RE,ME) ≈ 1.5x1028
∆nPV(RJ,MJ) ≈ 5.0x1028
∆nPV(RS,MS) ≈ 1.4x1029

111

Refers to particulate representations of maximum permissible energy densities (i.e. “BlackHole” singularities).
112
The radial dimension “r” denotes the position of ZPF equilibrium (refer to “The Natural
Philosophy of Fundamental Particles” or QE3).
113
A generalised reference to spectral bandwidth relative to “narrow” and “broad” descriptors.
57

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ωPV(1,r,M) Hz
ωPV(1,RM,MM) ≈ 0.05
ωPV(1,RE,ME) ≈ 0.04
ωPV(1,RJ,MJ) ≈ 9.8x10-3
ωPV(1,RS,MS) ≈ 4.8x10-3
Particle
Proton
Neutron
Electron
Electron Neutrino
Muon
Muon Neutrino
Tau
Tau Neutrino
Up Quark
Down Quark
Strange Quark
Charmed Quark
Bottom Quark
W Boson
Z Boson
Higgs Boson
Top Quark

ωΩ(r,M) YHz
ωΩ(RM,MM) ≈ 403
ωΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 520
ωΩ(RJ,MJ) ≈ 488
ωΩ(RS,MS) ≈ 646
Table 2.3,

∆ωPV(r,M) YHz
∆ωPV(rπ,mp) ≈ 2.6172x103
∆ωPV(rν,mn) ≈ 2.6246x103
∆ωPV(rε,me) ≈ 5.2337x103
∆ωPV(ren,men) ≈ 5.2348x103
∆ωPV(rµ,mµ) ≈ 2.0934x104
∆ωPV(rµn,mµn) ≈ 2.0939x104
∆ωPV(rτ,mτ) ≈ 3.1409x104
∆ωPV(rτn,mτn) ≈ 3.1409x104
∆ωPV(ruq,muq) ≈ 3.6636x104
∆ωPV(rdq,mdq) ≈ 3.6636x104
∆ωPV(rsq,msq) ≈ 7.3272x104
∆ωPV(rcq,mcq) ≈ 1.0991x105
∆ωPV(rbq,mbq) ≈ 1.4654x105
∆ωPV(rW,mW) ≈ 2.5645x105
∆ωPV(rZ,mZ) ≈ 2.9309x105
∆ωPV(rH,mH) ≈ 3.2972x105
∆ωPV(rtq,mtq) ≈ 3.6636x105
Table 2.4,

ωPV(1,r,M) THz
ωPV(1,rπ,mp) ≈ 0.0355
ωPV(1,rν,mn) ≈ 0.0357
ωPV(1,rε,me) ≈ 0.8421
ωPV(1,ren,men) ≈ 9.3719
ωPV(1,rµ,mµ) ≈ 8.0751
ωPV(1,rµn,mµn) ≈ 28.6052
ωPV(1,rτ,mτ) ≈ 12.1584
ωPV(1,rτn,mτn) ≈ 30.3949
ωPV(1,ruq,muq) ≈ 61.1401
ωPV(1,rdq,mdq) ≈ 53.2256
ωPV(1,rsq,msq) ≈ 160.8502
ωPV(1,rcq,mcq) ≈ 266.5401
ωPV(1,rbq,mbq) ≈ 414.2502
ωPV(1,rW,mW) ≈ 875.8276
ωPV(1,rZ,mZ) ≈ 1.1768x103
ωPV(1,rH,mH) ≈ 1.4920x103
ωPV(1,rtq,mtq) ≈ 1.7578x103

nΩ(r,M)
nΩ(RM,MM) ≈ 8.6x1027
nΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 1.5x1028
nΩ(RJ,MJ) ≈ 5.0x1028
nΩ(RS,MS) ≈ 1.4x1029
∆nPV(r,M)
∆nPV(rπ,mp) ≈ 7.3723x1016
∆nPV(rν,mn) ≈ 7.3452x1016
∆nPV(rε,me) ≈ 6.2154x1015
∆nPV(ren,men) ≈ 5.5857x1014
∆nPV(rµ,mµ) ≈ 2.5924x1015
∆nPV(rµn,mµn) ≈ 7.3201x1014
∆nPV(rτ,mτ) ≈ 2.5833x1015
∆nPV(rτn,mτn) ≈ 1.0334x1015
∆nPV(ruq,muq) ≈ 5.9921x1014
∆nPV(rdq,mdq) ≈ 6.8831x1014
∆nPV(rsq,msq) ≈ 4.5553x1014
∆nPV(rcq,mcq) ≈ 4.1235x1014
∆nPV(rbq,mbq) ≈ 3.5376x1014
∆nPV(rW,mW) ≈ 2.9281x1014
∆nPV(rZ,mZ) ≈ 2.4906x1014
∆nPV(rH,mH) ≈ 2.2100x1014
∆nPV(rtq,mtq) ≈ 2.0842x1014

ωΩ(r,M) YHz
ωΩ(rπ,mp) ≈ 2.6172x103
ωΩ(rν,mn) ≈ 2.6246x103
ωΩ(rε,me) ≈ 5.2337x103
ωΩ(ren,men) ≈ 5.2348x103
ωΩ(rµ,mµ) ≈ 2.0934x104
ωΩ(rµn,mµn) ≈ 2.0939x104
ωΩ(rτ,mτ) ≈ 3.1409x104
ωΩ(rτn,mτn) ≈ 3.1409x104
ωΩ(ruq,muq) ≈ 3.6636x104
ωΩ(rdq,mdq) ≈ 3.6636x104
ωΩ(rsq,msq) ≈ 7.3272x104
ωΩ(rcq,mcq) ≈ 1.0991x105
ωΩ(rbq,mbq) ≈ 1.4654x105
ωΩ(rW,mW) ≈ 2.5645x105
ωΩ(rZ,mZ) ≈ 2.9309x105
ωΩ(rH,mH) ≈ 3.2972x105
ωΩ(rtq,mtq) ≈ 3.6636x105
Table 2.5,

58

nΩ(r,M)
nΩ(rπ,mp) ≈ 7.3723x1016
nΩ(rν,mn) ≈ 7.3452x1016
nΩ(rε,me) ≈ 6.2154x1015
nΩ(ren,men) ≈ 5.5857x1014
nΩ(rµ,mµ) ≈ 2.5924x1015
nΩ(rµn,mµn) ≈ 7.3201x1014
nΩ(rτ,mτ) ≈ 2.5833x1015
nΩ(rτn,mτn) ≈ 1.0334x1015
nΩ(ruq,muq) ≈ 5.9921x1014
nΩ(rdq,mdq) ≈ 6.8831x1014
nΩ(rsq,msq) ≈ 4.5553x1014
nΩ(rcq,mcq) ≈ 4.1235x1014
nΩ(rbq,mbq) ≈ 3.5376x1014
nΩ(rW,mW) ≈ 2.9281x1014
nΩ(rZ,mZ) ≈ 2.4906x1014
nΩ(rH,mH) ≈ 2.2100x1014
nΩ(rtq,mtq) ≈ 2.0842x1014

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Sample plots,

Figure 2.1 (illustrational only - not to scale),
where,
Region / Zone
Applicable Category
Gravitational Model
Space-Time Geom.

A
Cosmology
ZPF
Flat

B
Astro-Physics
PV
Curved
Table 2.6,

C
Particle-Physics
PV
Flat

D
Planck Scale
PV
Curved

On a Cosmological scale114, the ZPF upper spectral limit is influenced by the average energy
density of the present Universe. The spectral density of the ZPF remains cubic; however, the upper
spectral frequency limit is lower than it was in the early Universe. Hence, the majority of ZPE is
presently in the form of low-frequency modes, each containing a relatively small amount of energy.
The few high-frequency modes characterising the early Universe have bifurcated into a very
large bandwidth of lower-frequency modes as the Universe expanded to its present form. The total
energy of the Universe remains constant, but is spread out over a much greater volume as
Cosmological expansion continues115. It is demonstrated by derivation in QE3 and confirmed in
114

i.e. on average, with a flat space-time manifold as determined by “WMAP”.
The information in this paragraph should not be confused with the PV spectrum of a specific
body such as a planet, in which case, the bulk of the gravitational energy [i.e. >> 99.99(%)] occurs
at the harmonic cut-off frequency. The low frequency modes do not contribute significantly and
may be usefully neglected from most calculations. This phenomenon has been thoroughly and
rigorously explored in QE3.
115

59

www.deltagroupengineering.com

QE4, that the majority proportion of the gravitational effect in a field occurs at the harmonic cut-off
frequency “ωΩ” such that all other frequencies may be usefully neglected.
Subsequently, utilising this proportional spectral frequency characteristic in the harmonic
representation of gravitational fields by the EGM method, the bifurcation phenomenon may be
mathematically articulated by a simple derivation as follows,
Utilising “ωΩ” from QE3,

ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(3.73)

Note: “Eq. 3.xx, 4.xx” denotes reference to QE3,4 respectively.
An expression for the Spectral Energy Density, as derived by HRP [see: Eq. (3.47)], per cubic mode
population “ρ0(ω) / nΩ3” may be defined according to,
ρ 0 ω Ω ( r, M )
n Ω ( r, M )

2 .h . ω Ω ( r , M )
n Ω( r, M )

c

3

3

2 .h .
3
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
c

(2.3)

Hence, the Spectral Energy Density per cubic mode population may be written in terms of the
fundamental harmonic PV spectral frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)” as,
3
2 .h .
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
c

ρ 0( r , M )

(2.4)

Associating the preceding expression with the energy density of a PV field “Uω” derived in QE3,
U ω ( r, M )

h .
4
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3
2 .c

(3.69)

yields,
3
2 .c .U ω ( r , M )

ω PV( 1 , r , M )

4

c .ρ 0( r , M )
2 .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

3

(2.5)
such that: the representation of Spectral Energy Density as a function of harmonic frequency may
be written as,
ρ 0 n PV, r , M

2
4 .c .U ω ( r , M )

ω PV n PV, r , M

(2.6)

where, the frequency spectrum of the harmonised gravitational field “ωPV” is given by Eq. (3.67),
ω PV n PV, r , M

n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r

(3.67)

Therefore: by substitution,
ρ0 ∝ 1 / nPV

(2.7)

Graphing yields,

60

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Figure 2.2 (illustrational only - not to scale),
where,
Region / Zone
Applicable Category
Gravitational Model
Space-Time Geom.

E
F
Planck Scale Particle-Physics
PV
PV
Curved
Flat
Table 2.7,

G
Astro-Physics
PV
Curved

H
Cosmology
ZPF
Flat

2.7.9 Characterisation of the gravitational spectrum
Note: refer to the glossary of terms if required.
The EGM equations, utilised to describe fundamental particles in harmonic terms “Stω”, are
simplified for values of Refractive Index approaching unity “KPV → 1”. This facilitates the
representation of “g” utilising the PV harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ”, leading to the formulation
of a generalised cubic frequency expression “g → ωPV3”. It is demonstrated that the PV spectrum is
dominated by “ωΩ” such that the magnitude of the associated gravitational Poynting Vector “SωΩ”
is usefully approximated by the total energy density “SωΩ → c⋅Um”, resulting in an expression for
EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”. The derivation sequence proceeds as follows,
lix. Simplification of the EGM equations.
lx. Derivation of “g” in terms of “ωΩ”.
lxi. Formulation of a generalised cubic frequency expression in terms of “g”: “g → ωPV3”.
lxii. Determination of the gravitationally dominant EGM frequency: “SωΩ → c⋅Um”.
lxiii. Derivation of EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”.
61

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.7.10 Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” characteristics
The minimum physical dimensions of “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle” mass and radius is
derived, leading to the determination of the value of “KPV” at the event horizon of a
“Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole” (SPBH). Consequently, the magnitude of the harmonic cut-off
frequency “ωΩ” at the event horizon “RBH” of a “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” (SBH) is presented,
yielding the singularity radius “rS” and harmonic cut-off profiles (“nΩ” and “ωΩ” as “r → RBH”).
The minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL” is also advanced such that the value of
generalised average emission frequency per Graviton “ωg” may be calculated. These determinations
assist in the supplemental EGM interpretation with respect to the visibility of “Black-Holes”
(BH’s). The derivation sequence proceeds as follows,
lxiv. Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle” mass and radius.
lxv. Derivation of the value of the “KPV” at the event horizon of a “Schwarzschild-PlanckBlack-Hole” (SPBH).
lxvi. Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SPBH.
lxvii. Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SBH.
lxviii. Derivation of “rS”.
lxix. “nΩ” and “ωΩ” profiles (as “r → RBH”) of SBH’s.
lxx. Derivation of the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL”.
lxxi. Derivation of the average emission frequency per Graviton “ωg”.
lxxii. Why can't we observe BH’s?
2.7.11 Fundamental Cosmology
The primordial and present values of the Hubble constant are derived (“Hα” and “HU”
respectively), leading to the determination of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
(CMBR) temperature “TU”. This facilitates the determination of the impact of “Dark Matter /
Energy” on “HU” and “TU” such that a generalised expression for “TU” in terms of “HU” is
formulated. An experimentally implicit derivation of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF” is
also presented. The derivation sequence proceeds as follows,
lxxiii. Derivation of the primordial and present Hubble constants “Hα, HU”.
lxxiv. Derivation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature “TU”.
lxxv. Numerical solutions for “Hα, AU, RU, ρU, MU, HU” and “TU”.
lxxvi. Determination of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on “HU” and “TU”.
lxxvii. “TU” as a function of a generalised Hubble constant “TU → TU2”.
lxxviii. Derivation of “Ro”, “MG”, “HU2” and “ρU2” from “TU2”.
lxxix. Experimentally implicit derivation of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF”.
2.7.12 Advanced Cosmology
A time dependent derivation of “TU” is performed, including its rate of change and
relationship to “HU”. This facilitates the articulation of the Cosmological evolution process into four
distinct periods dealing with the inflationary and early expansive phases. Subsequently, the history
of the Universe116 is developed and compared to the Standard Model (SM) of Cosmology (SMoC).
This assists in determining the Cosmological limitations of the EGM construct. The question of the
practicality of utilising conventional radio telescopes for gravitational astronomy is also addressed.
The derivation sequence proceeds as follows,
lxxx. Time dependent CMBR temperature “TU2 → TU3”.
lxxxi. Rates of change of CMBR temperature “TU3 → TU4 → d1,2,3TU4/dt1,2,3”.
116

As defined by the EGM construct.
62

www.deltagroupengineering.com

lxxxii.
lxxxiii.
lxxxiv.
lxxxv.
lxxxvi.

Rates of change of the Hubble constant “d1,2H/dt1,2”.
Cosmological evolution process.
History of the Universe.
EGM Cosmological construct limitations.
Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools for gravitational astronomy?

2.7.13 Gravitational Cosmology
An engineering model is developed to explain how gravitational effects are transmitted
through space-time in terms of EGM wavefunction propagation and interference. The derivation
sequence proceeds as follows,
lxxxvii. Gravitational propagation: the mechanism for interaction.
lxxxviii. Gravitational interference: the mechanism of interaction.
2.7.14 Particle Cosmology
The following characteristics are derived utilising EGM principles:
lxxxix. The Photon and Graviton mass-energies lower limit.
xc. The Photon and Graviton Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge radii lower limit.
xci. The Photon charge threshold.
xcii. The Photon charge upper limit.
xciii. The Photon charge lower limit.
2.8

Key point summary

Under the EGM construct, the following assertions were derived:
xciv. The EGM spectrum is a harmonic description of mass-energy represented as conjugate
EM wavefunction pairs; incrementally above “ω = 0(Hz)”, tending to the Planck
Frequency “ωh” and obeying a Fourier distribution. Key generalised spectral features are,
• It is discrete and harmonically continuous “–ωh ← ω → +ωh”.
• The highest frequency is a harmonic multiple of the fundamental (i.e. lowest freq.).
• Each wavefunction represents a population of Photons such that each conjugate
Photon pair constitutes a Graviton.
• Where appropriate, due to the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the law of
conservation of energy, it may also be referred to as the PV spectrum.
xcv. The ZPF is an EM frequency spectrum referring to the QV spectrum of globally flat
space-time geometry. However, such a configuration cannot physically exist; thus, the
ZPF takes the form of a generalised reference to the QV field throughout the “Quinta
Essentia” series (i.e. QE2-4) such that,
• The number of harmonic modes approaches infinity.
• The highest frequency tends to zero.
xcvi. The PV is an EM frequency spectrum obeying a Fourier distribution at displacement “r”
describing a mass “M” induced gravitational field such that,
• It denotes a polarised form of the ZPF spectrum.
• The population of spectral modes “nΩ(r,M)” decreases as mass increases.
• Maximum spectral frequency “ωΩ(r,M)” increases as mass increases.
• The fundamental spectral frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)” increases as mass increases.
• Spectral frequency bandwidth increases as mass increases.
xcvii. A vanishing volume containing infinite energy does not exist under the EGM construct.
xcviii. Although on the human scale the quantity of ZPF energy is trivial, on the astronomical or
Cosmological scale, it becomes extremely large when approaching the dimensions of the
visible Universe.
63

www.deltagroupengineering.com

xcix. The EGM spectrum is a simple, but extreme, extension of the EM spectrum.
c. The ZPF equilibrium radius of astronomical bodies coincides with the mean radius (see:
QE3), representing the mathematical boundary (within EGM) delineating mass
composition and the gravitational field surrounding it.
NOTES

64

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3 The PV Model of Gravity
3.1

Synopsis

The Polarisable Vacuum (PV) representation of General Relativity (GR) is applied to derive
mathematical tools facilitating the formulation of “metric engineering” principles utilising
ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields. An Engineering interpretation of the PV model is articulated, termed
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM), demonstrating how transformations may be applied to the ZeroPoint-Field (ZPF) to describe variations in energy density as a superposition of EM waves.
3.2

Introduction

The Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of Gravity is an optical representation of General
Relativity (GR) such that the curvature of the space-time manifold is expressed in terms of a
Refractive Index “KPV” yielding,
i. The potential to supplement GR in terms of the propagation of light through an optical
medium, with a scalar theory of gravitation featuring formal analogies with Maxwell's
theory of ElectroMagnetism.
ii. The potential to unify gravitation and ElectroMagnetism in a theory of Electro-Gravity by
quantising the field with populations of conjugate Photon pairs (i.e. Gravitons as defined
within the EGM construct).
iii. The potential to provide a physical mechanism for how space-time “acquires curvature” in
GR, suggesting the possibility of “metric engineering” for spacecraft propulsion etc.
The PV model has been shown to pass five crucial tests of GR: (i) predictions of
gravitational red shift, (ii) bending of light by a star, (iii) the advance of the perihelion of Mercury
(iv), a metric representation leading to the Schwarzschild solution of GR and (v), the inclusion of
charge leads to a representation of the Reissner-Nordstrom metric.
The success of the PV representation of GR is remarkable given that it is not a geometric
model. It is based upon the polarisability of the ZPF and described by variations in permeability
“µ0” and permittivity “ε0” as a function of system co-ordinates, in accordance with “THµε”
methodology117 and classical macroscopic theory of polarisable media.
3.3

Precepts and principles

Let us consider light bending around an influential gravitational body in a vacuum. One
expects that the velocity of light at infinity118 “c0” should be modified by space-time curvature to
“c”; hence, the value of “KPV” of space-time may be described such that “KPV = c0 / c”. Since “c0”
is a definition (i.e. not a measurement), we conclude that “KPV > 1” for any gravitational field.
However, when measurements of “c” are performed utilising instrumentation in the locally
inertial reference frame, the instruments (i.e. “rulers and clocks”) are also modified by the
gravitational field such that the measured value of Refractive Index is always unity. Hence, one
may intelligently question; what is the value of such an approach if the determination of the
Refractive Index is always unity (i.e. “KPV = 1”)?
The answer may be derived by considering a distant observer119 of an appropriate Gravity
well. In such a case, the observer conceptually introduces “KPV” by postulating that “c0” is different
in the reference frame of the Gravity well. Thus, relative to the distant observer utilising a globally
117

In the Gaussian system of units, the values of inductance and capacitance are historically derived
from geometrical units of length and time.
118
i.e. in a globally flat space-time manifold.
119
i.e. approaching infinity.
65

www.deltagroupengineering.com

flat coordinate system in the local rest frame, variations in the gravitational field strength manifest
as changes in the value of Refractive Index120 (i.e. “KPV > 1”).
The PV model theorizes that controlling the value of “KPV” affects aspects of Special
Relativity (SR) such as time dilation, length contraction and relativistic mass, thereby permitting
supraluminal travel as determined by the distant observer. Subsequently, the impact of this upon
space-time provokes the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) construct, formulated utilising standard
engineering design methodologies and principles rather than GR such that,
i.
The PV model is a tool for understanding gravitation in terms of “KPV”, which
determines the intensity of space-time curvature.
ii.
The ZPF provides the refractive medium (i.e. “KPV”) required by the PV model in a
globally flat space-time manifold121.
iii.
EGM is a tool allowing “KPV” to be understood in terms of spectral energy122. The
physical definition of EGM may be stated as: the modification of vacuum polarisability
by application of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields.123
iv.
EGM relates gravitational acceleration “g” to locally applied EM fields via the
equivalence principle124, utilising Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s) and
Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT).
v.
EGM is a discrete interpretation of classical EM field theory where the ZPF is
considered to be an EM field with a continuous spectrum of frequency modes.
vi.
EGM describes the PV as an EM field of densely packed discrete frequencies obeying a
Fourier distribution.
vii.
EGM demonstrates that the PV may be usefully represented by a superposition of EM
fields, interpreted theoretically as the local Spectral Energy Density of the vacuum state
as derived in Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED).
viii.
EGM theorizes “metric engineering” of local vacuum polarisability by the manipulation
of energy density via by the superposition of applied EM fields.
3.4

ZPF transformations

If the ZPF is an EM field with Lorentz invariant Spectral Energy Density125 “ρ0”, existing as
a continuous cubic frequency distribution126 “ω3”, the relationship between them may be written as
follows,
ρ 0( ω )

2 .h .ω
3

c0

3

(3.47)

where, “h” denotes Planck’s Constant [6.6260693 x10-34(Js)] and “ω” is in “(Hz)”.
Relating the preceding equation to an elemental cubic volume (i.e. a box) of
homogeneous127 Photon population, the cubic wavelength transforms analogously such that “ρ0” is
Lorentz invariant. Therefore, in all locally inertial reference frames, one expects to observe constant
“ρ0” at each harmonic frequency mode “nPV”. To articulate variations in the energy density of the

120

Its value may be determined by measurements of gravitational red shift by the distant observer.
The presence of gravitational fields significantly modifies the Spectral Energy Density of the
ZPF. This is rigorously explored in QE3.
122
Resulting in a well defined “local” representation of the PV.
123
i.e. affecting the state of the PV medium.
124
By dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity.
125
i.e. each “nPV” in the field possesses a minimum energy of “h⋅ω/2”.
126
Distinct from the discrete PV spectrum derived in QE3 utilising Eq. (3.47).
127
Inferring a constant “g” environment.
121

66

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ZPF, “nPV” transforms128 by wavefunction superposition such that “ρ0” remains Lorentz
invariant129.
Therefore, given that the PV model passes several crucial tests of GR utilising “KPV”, it
follows that the EGM construct also passes these tests because “rulers and clocks” depend upon the
local value of “ρ0” (by wavefunction superposition within the EGM construct), just as they depend
upon “KPV” in the PV model. Hence, it is conjectured that the presence of matter or energy results
in discrete variations in the spectrum, thereby breaking the symmetry of the ZPF ground state
resulting in gravitational effects via the equivalence principle described by similitude techniques.
3.5

PV transformations

The historical derivation of the PV model exhibits isomorphism to GR in weak field
approximation. By comparison, the similarities between EGM and the PV model demonstrate that
EGM is also isomorphic to GR in the weak field. However, differences exist between the two
representations, primarily due to the introduction of a superposition of fields, facilitating the
formulation of engineering tools which may be utilised in practical applications.
Within the EGM construct, “KPV” is a function of “ρ0” by wavefunction superposition at
each point in a gravitational field. EGM supports the conjecture of the PV model such that
measurements by “rulers and clocks” depend upon “KPV” of the medium, by applying
transformations to the ZPF. Hence, utilising the weak field approximation “Eq. (3.55)” or the
assigned form of the “Depp” solution130 “Eq. (4.106)”, a PV transformation table for application to
“metric engineering” effects may be formulated utilising,
2.

K PV( r , M ) e

G .M
r .c 0

2

(3.55)
1

K Depp ( r , M )
1

2 .G.M
r .c 0

2

(4.106)

For weak field applications, it may be proven by numerical evaluation131 that Eq. (4.106) is
usefully approximated by Eq. (3.55) such that,
K PV( r , M )
K PV( r , M )

K Depp ( r , M )

2

K Depp ( r , M )

(4.110)

where, “r” and “M” denote the magnitude of the position vector from the centre of mass of the
object to the observer and object mass respectively.
Note:
• For strong fields, “KPV << KDepp2” and “KDepp2” [i.e. Eq. (4.106)] must be applied. Whilst
“KDepp2” is valid for all gravitational field strengths compliant with the Schwarzschild limit,
the exponential form of Refractive Index “KPV” [i.e. Eq. (3.55)] is only valid in the weak
field.
• It is the preference of the primary author, for no reason other than scientific respect, to
apply the historically original weak field approximation of Refractive Index “KPV” derived
by Puthoff et. Al., throughout the “Quinta Essentia” series (i.e. QE2-4); where appropriate.
128

It is demonstrated in QE3 that “nPV” is also a function of coordinates.
Quantised within the applied boundary conditions.
130
The assigned form of the Schwarzschild solution specified in QE4 for purposes of convenience
with application to Eq (3.67), from the original derivation by Depp et. Al.
131
Refer to QE4.
129

67

www.deltagroupengineering.com

A transformation table articulating the weak field exponential approximation132 of the “PV
Representation of GR” may be generated as follows133,
Physical Constant
Velocity of light
Planck
Dirac134
Gravitation
Permeability
Permittivity
Impedance
Unit of Measure135
Mass (m)
Length (r)
Time (t)
Energy (E)
Planck Measure136
Mass (mh)
Length (λh)
Time (th)
Energy (Eh)
Relative Measure137
Mass
Length
Time
Energy

PV Representation of GR
c(KPV) = KPV-1⋅c0
h(KPV) = h0 = h
ħ(KPV) = ħ0 = ħ
G(KPV) = G0 = G
µ(KPV) = KPV⋅µ0
ε(KPV) = KPV⋅ε0
Z(KPV) = Z0 = (µ0/ε0)½
m(KPV) = KPV3/2⋅m0
r(KPV) = KPV-½⋅r0
t(KPV) = KPV½⋅t0
E(KPV) = KPV-½⋅E0
mh(KPV) = KPV-½⋅mh_0
λh(KPV) = KPV3/2⋅λh_0
th(KPV) = KPV5/2⋅th_0
Eh(KPV) = KPV-5/2⋅Eh_0
m(KPV)/mh(KPV) = KPV2⋅(m0/mh_0)
r(KPV)/λh(KPV) = KPV-2⋅(r0/λh_0)
t(KPV)/th(KPV) = KPV-2⋅(t0/th_0)
E(KPV)/Eh(KPV) = KPV2⋅(E0/Eh_0)
Table138 2.8,

where, “Eh = mh⋅c02” and,
th

G.h
5

c0

mh

(4.16)

h .c 0
G

(4.18)

λh

G.h
3

c0

(4.19)

Hence, the preceding table permits Engineers (in principle) to design and develop new
technologies within the EGM construct, to affect the PV medium controlling relative polarisability
(i.e. “KPV, KDepp2”), at any point in a gravitational field by the superposition of applied EM
wavefunctions.
Note: to apply the preceding table to strong fields, “KPV” must be replaced by the assigned form of
the “Depp” Schwarzschild solution (i.e. “KDepp2”).
132

i.e. the historically original form derived by Puthoff et. Al.
The subscript “0” relates to values in a globally flat space-time manifold. The non-subscripted
parameters of “µ”, “ε” and “Z” do not refer to the classical representation of relative permeability,
permittivity and impedance (i.e. they are generalised references to the constants only).
134
Where, “ħ” denotes Dirac’s Constant (i.e. “ħ ≡ h / 2π”).
135
PV transformations at the physical scale (i.e. “rulers and clocks”).
136
PV transformations at the Planck scale.
137
This demonstrates the consistency of relative measures of the PV model (i.e. the relationship
between the physical and Planck scales).
138
By Desiato et. Al.
133

68

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.6

The Schwarzschild solution

3.6.1 Special note
i.
ii.

This section is based upon formalisms by “Joseph G. Depp”.
All mathematical statements herein were formulated utilising “MathCad 8 Professional”
and appear in standard product notation. It is a MathCad computational environmental
requirement to specify all derivatives utilising full differential form. However, the
notation utilised within this section refers to partial derivatives where appropriate (i.e.
“dKPV ≡ δKPV”).

3.6.2 Abstract
The PV model is scrutinised for mathematical equivalence to the Schwarzschild GR
solution. An alternative is proposed such that the resulting Lagrangian Density and equation of
motion are presented for further investigation.
3.6.3 Introduction
In 1957, Dicke et. Al. published an oft-cited paper139 investigating the possibility that GR
could be derived from field theory. The form of the Lagrangian Density “LD” for the Refractive
Index was taken as,
L D K PV

K L.F K PV . ∇ K PV

2

K PV d
. K
PV
c 0 dt

2

(2.8)

where, “KPV” is a generalised reference140 to Refractive Index, “KL” and “F(KPV)” represent a
constant and scalar function respectively.
Dicke et. Al. formalised a solution such that “F(KPV) → 1/KPV”, whilst Puthoff et. Al.
investigated “F(KPV) → 1/KPV2”. Herein, it is concluded that the form “F(KPV) → 1/KPV4” satisfies
the Schwarzschild solution for congruence with GR.
3.6.4 “KPV”
The development of the Schwarzschild metric is found in many introductory texts to GR141.
The generalised spherically symmetric, time-independent metric line element may be written
according to,
ds

2

A ( r ) . c 0 .dt

B( r ) .dr

2

2

2
2
r . dθ

( sin ( θ ) .dφ)

2

(2.9)

where, A(r) and B(r) are intrinsically positive functions such that the metric element is typically
solved obtaining the solution by means of “c0 = G = 1” as follows,
A( r)

1
B( r )

1

2 .G.M
r .c 0

2

1

2 .M
r

(2.10)

139

R. H. Dicke, “Gravitation without a principle of equivalence”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363–376,
(1957).
140
i.e. not specifically relating to the weak field exponential approximation shown by Eq. (3.55).
141
R. Adler, M. Bazin, M. Schiffer, “Introduction to General Relativity”, McGraw-Hill 1994 Ch 6,
164-173.
69

www.deltagroupengineering.com

where, Desiato et. Al. assert142 that the Schwarzschild solution of the Refractive Index takes the
form “KPV(r,M) → A(r,M)-1 = B(r,M)” hence,
1
2 .G.M

KPV(r,M) →
1

1
1

r .c 0

2 .M
r

2

(2.11i)

3.6.5 “F(KPV)”
The PV equation of motion with scalar function “F(KPV)” may be written as,
2

∇ K PV

K PV
c0

2

2
.d K
PV
d t2

1 . f K PV .
∇ K PV
2 F K PV

2

2

K PV

K PV f K PV
.
. 1 . d K
PV
2 F K PV c 2 d t
0

2

(2.12)

where, “f(KPV) = F`(KPV)” such that for a spherically symmetric time-independent solution the
preceding equation reduces to,
d

2

d r2

K PV

2 .d
r dr

1 . f K PV . d
K PV
2 F K PV d r

K PV

2

(2.13)

As stated in the introduction, Dicke et. Al. formalised a solution where “F(KPV) → 1/KPV”,
whilst Puthoff et. Al. investigated “F(KPV) → 1/KPV2”. Hence, based upon the Dicke / Puthoff et. Al.
formalisms, an obvious evolutionary proposition to investigate is “F(KPV) → 1/KPV4”.
To test the stated Desiato et. Al. assertion, we hypothesise that the result “F(KPV) = 1/ KPV4”
may be obtained by substitution of Eq. (2.11i) into Eq. (2.13); executing the procedure yields,
f K PV

4

F K PV

K PV

(2.14)
143

Solving for “F(KPV)” with a constant of integration set to zero

produces,

1

F K PV

4

K PV

(2.15)

Therefore, the Desiato et. Al. assertion is validated and the assigned form of the Refractive
Index articulated by Eq. (4.106) (i.e. “KDepp2”) is verified as a satisfactory Schwarzschild GR
solution.
3.6.6 “LD(KPV)”
Substituting “F(KPV) = 1/ KPV4” into Eq. (2.8, 2.12) yields,
L D K PV

2

∇ K PV

142
143

KL

. ∇K
PV
4
K PV

K PV
c0

2

2

K PV d
. K
PV
c 0 dt

2
2 . ∇ K PV
.d K
PV
K PV
d t2

2

2

K PV d
. K
PV
2
c 0 dt

(2.16)
2

(2.17)

T. J. Desiato, R. C. Storti, “Event horizons in the PV model”, E-print 2003.
Due to the inclusion of the arbitrary constant “KL” in “LD”.
70

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.6.7 Conclusion
Eq. (2.16) differs from the Lagrangian Densities utilised by Dicke / Puthoff et. Al. However,
it produces an expression for the Refractive Index in exact agreement with the Schwarzschild GR144
solution. Moreover, the Desiato et. Al. assertion implies that co-ordinates “(r,θ,φ,t)” in Eq. (2.16,
2.17) are equivalent to those in the metric element defined in Eq. (2.8), implicitly satisfying
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity associated with the utilisation of DAT’s and BPT
within the EGM construct.
3.7

The Reissner-Nordstrom solution

3.7.1 Special note
i.
ii.

This section is based upon formalisms by “Joseph G. Depp”.
All mathematical statements herein were formulated utilising “MathCad 8 Professional”
and appear in standard product notation. It is a MathCad computational environmental
requirement to specify all derivatives utilising full differential form. However, the
notation utilised within this section refers to partial derivatives where appropriate (i.e.
“dKPV ≡ δKPV”).

3.7.2 Abstract
The PV model is scrutinised for mathematical equivalence to the Reissner-Nordstrom GR
solution. An alternative is proposed such that the resulting Lagrangian Density and equation of
motion are presented for further investigation.
3.7.3 “LD(KPV)”
Utilising Eq. (2.8), “LD” for the Refractive Index of an EM field may be written as,
L D K PV

KL

. ∇K
PV
4
K PV

2

K PV d
. K
PV
c 0 dt

2

1.

2

B( r )
2 K PV.µ 0

2
K PV.ε 0 .E( r )

(2.18)

For a static point charge (i.e. “B = 0”), the field is given in “MKS” units by,
E( r )

Q
2
4 .π .K PV.ε 0 .r

(2.19)

where, only non-source terms such as “c”, “µ” and “ε” transform (i.e. incorporate “KPV”).
3.7.4 “ψ1,2”
Utilising Eq. (2.18), the PV equation of motion may be written according to,
2 .K L

2
2
d
. ∇2 K
K PV .
K PV
PV
4
d ( c .t ) 2
K PV

144

2 .
∇ K PV
K PV

2

d
K PV.
K PV
d ( c .t )

2

1

2

.1 0
4
2 .K PV ( 4 .π ) .ε 0 r
(2.20)
.

Q

2

2

The Dicke / Puthoff et. Al. formalisms do not achieve Schwarzschild compliance.
71

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Simplifying yields,
2 .K L

2
. d K
PV
4
K PV d r 2

d

2

d r2

K PV

2 .d
K PV
r dr

2 . d
K PV
K PV d r

2 .d
K PV
r dr

2 . d
K PV
K PV d r

2

1

2

.1 0
4
2 .K PV ( 4 .π ) ε 0 r
.

2

2

Q

2.

2

Q

K
. PV

2
64.π .ε 0 .K L

r

2

(2.21)

4

(2.22)

Let,
2 .ψ 2

2

Q

2
64.π .ε 0 .K L

(2.23)

Hence,
d

2

d r2

K PV

2 .d
r dr

K PV

2 . d
K PV
K PV d r

2

2
2 .K PV .ψ 2
4

r

(2.24)

Pursuant to the Desiato et. Al. Schwarzschild assertion in the preceding section, the
“Reissner-Nordstrom” metric line element takes the following Refractive Index form,
ds

1

2

K PV( r )

. c .dt
0

2

K PV( r ) .dr

2

2
2
r . dθ

( sin ( θ ) .dφ)

2

(2.25)

such that:
KPV(r) = [1 ± (ψ1/r) ± (ψ2/r2)]-1
where, by means of “c0 = G = 1”,
ψ1

2 .G.M

(2.26)

2 .M

2

c0

(2.27)

3.7.5 Conclusion
It has been demonstrated that the modified PV Lagrangian Density presented in the
preceding section yields the Reissner-Nordstrom metric line element.
NOTES

72

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.8

The generalised PV equations of motion

3.8.1 Special note
i.
ii.

iii.

This section is based upon formalisms by “Todd J. Desiato”.
The Schwarzschild solution for the Refractive Index is utilised in this section. Desiato
et. Al. derived (i.e. in addition to Depp et. Al.) the Schwarzschild solution “KDesiato” by
unique means. The derivation of “KDesiato” has been omitted for brevity which is
intended to foster an appreciation for the identical PV representations of GR formulated
by two independent sources, reinforcing the EGM construct.
All mathematical statements herein were formulated utilising “MathCad 8 Professional”
and appear in standard product notation. It is a MathCad computational environmental
requirement to specify all derivatives utilising full differential form. However, the
notation utilised within this section refers to partial derivatives where appropriate (i.e.
“dKPV ≡ δKPV”).

3.8.2 Abstract
Time-independent solutions of the equations of motion for the Refractive Index in the PV
model are derived by Desiato et. Al. It is demonstrated that these equations may be applied to obtain
solutions and equations of motion for the metric component functions, identical to GR. The
equations of motion in the PV model are easier to solve than the equations of GR as they do not
require Tensor mathematics or geometric interpretations to be understood.
3.8.3 Time-independent solutions
The time-independent equations of motion for the Refractive Index in the PV model are
found from the Laplace equation, “∇2φ(r) = 0” as follows,
2

∇ φ( r ) ∇

2

c0
K PV( r )

2

1

0

K PV

(2.28)

where, “φ(r) = c0 / KPV(r)” is abbreviated to “1/KPV” by means of “c0 = G = 1”.
3.8.4 Co-ordinate systems
3.8.4.1 Cartesian
In Cartesian co-ordinates “(x1,x2,x3)”, solutions for “1/KPV” are a family of straight lines of
the form145 “1/KPV = a⋅x1,2,3 + b”.
3.8.4.2 Spherical
In spherical co-ordinates “(r,θ,φ)” for a symmetric potential, Eq. (2.28) becomes,
d

2

d r2

K PV

2 .d
K PV
r dr

2 . d
K PV
K PV d r

2

0

(2.29)

where, the solution for “KPV” is identical to the Schwarzschild GR solution as follows146,
145
146

From the generalised classical representation of “y = m⋅x + c”.
i.e. derived by Depp / Desiato et. Al. independently.
73

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1
2 .G.M

KPV(r,M) → KDepp(r,M)2 → KDesiato(r,M) →
1

1
1

r .c 0

2 .M
r

2

(2.11ii)

The Schwarzschild metric component is then interpreted as the Refractive Index of the ZPF
surrounding a spherical homogeneous mass “M”, centred at the origin of the co-ordinate system.
Moreover, if we include an ElectroMagnetic (EM) “source” term such as charge “Q” located at the
origin of the coordinate system, Eq. (2.29) becomes,
d

2

d r2

2 .d

K PV

r dr

K PV

2 . d
K PV
K PV d r

2

2
2 .K PV .ψ 2
4

r

(2.24)

where, any value of “KPV” of the form “KPV(r) = [1 ± (ψ1/r) ± (ψ2/r2)]-1” is a solution such that147,
ψ2

2
G.Q

4 .π .ε 0 .c 0

4

(2.30)

3.8.4.3 Cylindrical
In cylindrical co-ordinates “(ρ,θ,z)”, the equation of motion for an “infinite wire” is derived
from Eq. (2.28) as follows,
d

2

dρ2

K PV

1 .d
ρ dρ

K PV

2 . d
K PV
K PV d ρ

2

(2.31)

Eq. (2.31) is identical to that derived under GR; thus, possessing identical Refractive Index
solutions.
3.8.5 “KL”
Equating Eq. (2.23, 2.30), a solution for “KL” may be determined according to,
2
G.Q

2

Q

2
4
128.π .ε 0 .K L 4 .π .ε 0 .c 0

(2.32)

Hence,
4

KL

c0

32.π .G

(2.33)

Therefore, “KL” is in agreement with the value suggested by Dicke et. Al. based on heuristic
arguments, demonstrating that the PV model satisfies the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom
GR solutions.
3.8.6 Conclusion
Three different coordinate systems were utilised to determine the equations of motion of the
Refractive Index. In all cases, the solutions were found to be identical to those under GR. Therefore,
the PV model may provide insight into alternative models of Quantum Gravity (QG), without the
need for cumbersome geometric interpretations of the space-time manifold, simply the consistent
application of the Refractive Index to typical scalar field theories.
147

Including the Reissner-Nordstrom solution, identical to GR.
74

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4 The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles
“The alpha males of academia [on occasion], project the convenience that
Nature is beyond simplicity and its secrets are only privy to themselves.”
• Riccardo C. Storti
Taken from “Quinta Essentia – Part 3, 4” (QE3,4)
Abstract
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) is a term describing a hypothetical harmonic relationship
between Electricity, Gravity and Magnetism. The hypothesis may be mathematically articulated by
the application of Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s) and Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT),
both being well established and thoroughly tested geometric engineering principles, via Fourier
harmonics. The hypothesis may be tested by the correct derivation of experimentally verified
fundamental properties not predicted within the Standard Model (SM) of Particle-Physics.
Theoretical estimates and correlations, based upon the EGM method, are presented for the RootMean-Square (RMS) charge radius and mass-energy of many well established subatomic particles.
The estimates and correlations coincide to astonishing precision with experimental data presented
by the Particle Data Group (PDG), CDF, D0, L3, SELEX and ZEUS Collaborations. Our tabulated
results clearly demonstrate a possible natural harmonic pattern representing all fundamental
subatomic particles. In addition, our method predicts the possible existence of several other
subatomic particles not contained within the Standard Model (SM). The accuracy and simplicity of
our computational estimates demonstrate that EGM is a useful tool to gain insight into the domain
of subatomic particles.

75

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4.1

Harmonic representation of gravitational acceleration

It is demonstrated in “Quinta Essentia – Part 3” (QE3) that a theoretical representation of
constant acceleration at a mathematical point in a gravitational field may be defined by a
summation of trigonometric terms utilising modified complex Fourier series in exponential form,
according to the harmonic distribution “nPV = -N, 2 - N ... N”, where “N” is an odd number
harmonic. Hence, the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector “g” (via the equivalence
principle) may be usefully represented by Eq. (3.63) as “|nPV| → ∞”,
g( r , M )

G. M .
2

r

n PV

2 . i . π .n PV .ω
e
π . n PV

..
PV ( 1 , r , M ) t i

(3.63)

such that, the frequency spectrum of the harmonic gravitational field “ωPV” is given by Eq. (3.67),
ω PV n PV, r , M

n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r

(3.67)

where: “c0 → c”,
Variable
ωPV(1,r,M)
KPV

nPV
r
M
G

Description
Units
Fundamental spectral frequency
Hz
Refractive Index of a gravitational field in the Polarisable Vacuum
(PV) model of Gravity, only contributing significantly when a large
gravitational mass (i.e. a strong gravitational field) is considered. For
None
all applications herein, the effect is approximated to KPV(r,M) = 1.
Harmonic modes of the gravitational field
Magnitude of position vector from centre of mass
m
Mass
kg
Gravitational constant
m3kg-1s-2
Table 4.3,

Subsequently, the harmonic (Fourier) representation of the magnitude of the gravitational
acceleration vector (in the time domain) at the surface of the Earth up to “N = 21” is graphically
shown to be,

Gravitational Acceleration

g

Time

Figure 4.3: harmonic representation of gravitational acceleration,
As “N → ∞”, the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector becomes measurably constant.
Hence, Eq. (3.63, 3.67) illustrate that the Newtonian representation of “g” is easily harmonised over
the Fourier domain, from geometrically based methods (i.e. DAT’s and BPT). Therefore, unifying
(in principle) Newtonian, geometric (relativistic) and quantum (harmonised) models of Gravity.
QE3 demonstrates that the spectrum defined by Eq. (3.67) is discrete and finite. The lower
boundary value is given by “ωPV(1,r,M)”, whilst the upper boundary value “ωΩ” (also termed the
harmonic cut-off frequency) is given by Eq. (3.73),
76

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(3.73)

supported by the following equation set,
n Ω ( r, M )

Ω ( r, M )

4

12

Ω ( r, M )

1

(3.71)

3

Ω ( r, M )

108.

U m( r , M )

12. 768 81.

U ω( r , M )

U m( r , M )

U ω( r , M )

3 .M .c

U m( r , M )

2

U ω( r , M )

(3.72)

2

4 .π .r

(3.70)

h .
4
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3
2 .c

(3.69)

3

where,
Variable
nΩ

Um

h

Description
Units
None
Harmonic cut-off mode [mode number at ωΩ]
Harmonic cut-off function
Mass-energy density of a solid spherical gravitational object
Pa
Energy density of mass induced gravitational field scaled to
the fundamental spectral frequency
Planck’s Constant [6.6260693 x10-34]
Js
Table 4.4,

Since the relationship between trigonometric terms, at each amplitude and corresponding
frequency, is mathematically defined by the nature of Fourier series, the derivation of Eq. (3.71,
3.72) is based on the compression of energy density to one change in odd harmonic mode whilst
preserving dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity in accordance with BPT.
The preservation of similarity across one change in odd mode is due to the mathematical
properties of constant functions utilising Fourier series as discussed in QE3. The subsequent
application of these results to Eq. (3.63) acts to decompress the energy density over the Fourier
domain yielding a highly precise reciprocal harmonic representation of “g” whilst preserving
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity to Newtonian Gravity, identified by the “compression
technique” stated above.
Key gravitational characteristics for the Earth148 in the displacement domain may be
graphically represented as follows,

Fundamental Frequency

RE

ω PV 1 , r , M E
ω PV 1 , R E , M E

r
Radial Distance

Figure149 3.7,
148
149

“RE” and “ME” denote the radius and mass of the Earth respectively.
Fundamental frequency (|nPV| = 1) as a function of planetary radial displacement.
77

www.deltagroupengineering.com

RE
n Ω R E, M E
n Ω r, M E
ω Ω r, M E
ω Ω R E, M E

r
Radial Distance

Cutoff Mode
Cutoff Frequency

Figure150 3.8,
4.2

Poynting Vector “Sω”

“Haisch, Puthoff and Rueda” conjectured that “Inertia” may have ElectroMagnetic (EM)
origins due to the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) of Quantum-ElectroDynamics (QED), manifested by the
Poynting Vector, via the equivalence principle. Hence, it follows that gravitational acceleration may
also be EM in nature and the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of Gravity is an EM polarised state of
the ZPF with a Fourier distribution, assigning physical meaning to Eq. (3.63).
Subsequently, it follows that the energy density of a mass induced gravitational field may be
scaled to changes in odd harmonic mode numbers satisfying the mathematical properties of any
constant function described in terms of Fourier series utilising Eq. (3.69) - such that,
U ω n PV, r , M

U ω( r , M ) .

n PV

2

4

4

n PV

(3.68)

151

Therefore, the Poynting Vector
of the polarised Zero-Point (ZP) gravitational field “Sω”
surrounding a solid spherical object with homogeneous mass-energy distribution is given by,
S ω n PV, r , M

c .U ω n PV, r , M

(3.74)

ZPF Poynting Vector

and may be graphically represented as follows,

S ω n PV , R E , M E

n PV
Harmonic

Figure 3.9,
Fig. (3.9) illustrates that the Poynting Vector of the ZP gravitational field increases with
“nPV”. Further work in QE3 showed that “>>99.99(%)” of the effect in a gravitational field exists
150
151

Harmonic cut-off mode “nΩ” and frequency “ωΩ” as a function of planetary radial displacement.
Per change in odd harmonic mode number.
78

www.deltagroupengineering.com

well above the “THz” range. Hence, it becomes apparent that “nΩ” and “ωΩ” are important
characteristics of gravitational fields and were used to “quasi-unify” Particle-Physics in harmonic
form.
4.3

The size of the Proton, Neutron and Electron (radii: “rπ”, “rν”, “rε”)

QE3 derives the mass-energy threshold of the Photon utilising “nΩ” and the classical
Electron radius, to within “4.3(%)” of the Particle Data Group (PDG) value152 stated in [1], then
proceeds to derive the mass-energies and radii of the Photon and Graviton by the consistent
utilisation of “nΩ”.
The method developed was utilised to derive the sizes153 of the Electron, Proton and
Neutron. The motivation for this was to test the hypothesis presented by direct comparison of the
computed size values to experimentally measured fact. One may argue that highly precise
computational predictions’, agreeing with experimental evidence beyond the abilities of the SM to
do so, is conclusive evidence of the validity of the harmonic method developed in QE3.
To date, highly precise measurements have been made of the Root-Mean-Square (RMS)
charge radius of the Proton by [2] and the Mean-Square (MS) charge radius of the Neutron as
demonstrated in [3]. However, the calculations presented in QE3 are considerably more accurate
than the physical measurements articulated in [2,3], lending support for the harmonic representation
of the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector stated in Eq. (3.63).
The basic approach utilised in QE3 was to determine the equilibrium position between the
polarised state of the ZPF and the mass-energy of the fundamental particle inducing space-time
curvature as would appear in General Relativity (GR). In other words, one may consider the
curvature of the space-time manifold surrounding an object to be a “virtual fluid” in equilibrium
with the object itself154.
This concept is graphically represented in Fig. (4.4). A free fundamental particle with
classical form factor is depicted in equilibrium with the surrounding space-time manifold. The ZPF
is polarised by the presence of the particle in accordance with the PV model of Gravity, which is (at
least) isomorphic to GR in the weak field.

Figure 4.4: free fundamental particle with classical form factor,
In the case of the Proton, the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with the RMS charge radius
“rπ” [Eq. (3.199)] producing the experimentally verified result “rp” by the SELEX Collaboration as
stated in [2]155,
152

Consistent with experimental evidence and interpretation of data.
From first principles and from a single paradigm.
154
The intention is not to suggest that the space-time manifold is actually a fluid, it is merely to
present a method by which to solve a problem.
155
rπ = 0.8306(fm), rp = 0.8307 ± 0.012(fm).
153

79

www.deltagroupengineering.com

h .m e

5

4

. . m
. 27 h c . e
2
3
4 .π .G m p
16.c .π .m p

(3.199)

where, “me” and “mp” denote Electron and Proton rest-mass respectively.
In the case of the Neutron, the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with the radial position of
zero charge density “rν” [Eq. (3.200)] with respect to the Neutron charge distribution as illustrated
in Fig. (4.5). It is shown in QE3 that “rν” relates to the MS charge radius “KS” by a simple formula
[Eq. (3.396)] producing the experimentally verified result “KX” as presented in [3]156,
h .m e

5

4

. . m
. 27 h c . e

2
3
4 .π .G m n
16.c .π .m n

(3.200)

where, “mn” denotes Neutron rest-mass.
Neutron Charge Distribution

Charge Density

r dr

ρ ch( r )
ρ ch r 0

r dr

5.
3

ρ ch r dr

r
Radius

Charge Density
Maximum Charge Density
Minimum Charge Density

Figure 4.5: Neutron charge distribution,
KS
157

where, “x” is solved numerically

3. π .r ν
8

2

. (1

x) . x

1

x x

3

2

(3.396)

within the “MathCad” environment by the following algorithm,

Given
2

x

ln( x) .
2

x
x

1

(3.398)

1 3

(3.399)

Find ( x)

Utilising “KS”, “KX” may be converted to determine an experimental zero charge density radial
position value “rX” according to Eq. (3.418),

156
157

rν = 0.8269(fm), KS = -0.1133(fm2), KX = -0.113 ± 0.005(fm2).
x = 0.6829, rX = 0.8256 ± 0.018(fm).
80

www.deltagroupengineering.com

rX

KS

. K .K
S X

(3.418)

In the case of the Electron (as with the Proton), the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with
the RMS charge radius “rε” [Eq. (3.203)] producing an experimentally implied result158 as stated in
[4],
9

r ε r e.

1.
2

ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

5

γ

(3.203)

where, “re” and “γ” [5] denote the classical Electron radius and Euler-Mascheroni constant
respectively.
4.4

The harmonic representation of fundamental particles

4.4.1 Establishing the foundations
Motivated by the physical validation of Eq. (3.199, 3.200), Storti et. Al. conducted thought
experiments in QE3 to investigate harmonic and trigonometric relationships by analysing various
forms of radii combinations for the Electron, Proton and Neutron consistent with the DAT’s and
BPT derivations – yielding the following useful approximations,
ω Ω r ε, m e

ω Ω r ε, m e

ω Ω r π, m p

ω Ω r ν ,mn


α

2

(4.1)

π

(3.214)
2

.e

3

(3.204)

where,
i.
ii.

iii.
iv.

“α” and “e” denote the fine structure constant and exponential function respectively.
Eq. (4.1) error:
(a) Associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2” is “8.876 x10-3(%)”
(b) Associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rν,mn) = 2” is “0.266(%)”.
Eq. (3.214) error is “2.823(%)”.
Eq. (3.204) error is “0.042(%)”.

4.4.2 Improving accuracy
Since the experimental value of the RMS charge radius of the Proton is considered by the
scientific community to be precisely known159, the accuracy of Eq. (3.214, 3.204) may be improved
by re-computing the value of “rν” and “rε”. This action further strengthens the validity of Eq. (4.1)
by verifying trivial deviation utilising the re-computed values.
Hence, it follows that numerical solutions for “rν” and “rε”, constrained by exact
mathematical statements [Eq. (3.203, 3.204, 3.214, 4.1)], suggests that the gravitational relationship
between the Electron and Proton, as inferred by the result “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2”, is harmonic.
158
159

rε ≥ 0.0118(fm), γ = 0.577215664901533.
To a degree of accuracy significantly greater than the Electron or Neutron.
81

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The computational algorithm supporting this contention may be stated as follows,
Given
α

r ε ω Ω r ε, m e
r e ω Ω r π, m p




9

2

.e

3

1.
2

ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

5

γ

2 π

Find r ν , r ε

(4.2)

(4.3)

yields,

0.826838

0.011802

.( fm)

(4.4)

where,
i.

ii.
iii.

Eq. (4.1) error:
(a) Associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2” is “4.493 x10-7(%)”.
(b) Associated with “ωΩ(rε,me)/ωΩ(rν,mn) = 2” is “0.282(%)”.
Eq. (3.214) error is “1.11 x10-13(%)”.
Eq. (3.204) error is “0.026(%)”.

4.4.3 Formulating an hypothesis
In the preceding calculations utilising known particle mass and radii as a reference, it was
found that the harmonic cut-off frequency ratio of an Electron to a Proton was precisely “2”. This
provokes the hypothesis that a simple harmonic pattern may exist describing the relationship of all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen base particle according to,
ω Ω r 1, M 1
ω Ω r 2, M 2

St ω

(3.230i)

Performing the appropriate substitutions utilising Eq.(3.69 – 3.73), Eq. (3.230i) may be simplified
to,
M1
M2

2

.

r2

5

r1

St ω

9

(3.230ii)

where, “Stω” represents the ratio of two particle spectra. Subsequently, “rε” may be simply
calculated according to,
5

1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp

2

(3.231)

4.4.4 Identifying a mathematical pattern
Utilising Eq. (3.230ii), Storti et. Al. identify mathematical patterns in QE3 showing that
“Stω” may be represented in terms of the Proton, Electron and Quark harmonic cut-off frequencies
derived from the respective particle. Potentially, three new Leptons (L2, L3, L5 and associated
Neutrino’s: ν2, ν3, ν5) and two new Quark / Boson’s (QB5 and QB6) are predicted, beyond the SM
as shown in table (4.5).

82

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The EGM Harmonic Representation of Fundamental Particles (i.e. table (4.5)) is applicable
to the size relationship between the Proton and Neutron (i.e. to calculate “rπ” from “rν” and viceversa utilising “Stω = 1”) as an approximation only. For precise calculations based upon similar
forms, the reader should refer to Eq. (3.199, 3.200).
Note: although the newly predicted Leptons are within the kinetic range160 and therefore “should
have been experimentally detected”, there are substantial explanations discussed in the proceeding
sections.
Proton
Electron
Quark
Harmonics Harmonics Harmonics
Proton (p), Neutron (n)
Stω = 1
Stω = 1/2
Stω = 1/14
2
1
1/7
Electron (e), Electron Neutrino (ν
νe)
4
2
2/7
L2, ν2 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino)
6
3
3/7
L3, ν3 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino)
8
4
4/7
Muon (µ
µ), Muon Neutrino (ν
νµ)
10
5
5/7
L5, ν5 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino)
12
6
6/7
Tau (ττ), Tau Neutrino (ν
ντ )
Up Quark (uq), Down Quark (dq)
14
7
1
Strange Quark (sq)
28
14
2
Charm Quark (cq)
42
21
3
Bottom Quark (bq)
56
28
4
QB5 (Theoretical Quark or Boson)
70
35
5
QB6 (Theoretical Quark or Boson)
84
42
6
W Boson
98
49
7
Z Boson
112
56
8
Higgs Boson (H) (Theoretical)
126
63
9
Top Quark (tq)
140
70
10
Table 4.5: harmonic representation of fundamental particles,

Existing and Theoretical Particles

4.4.5 Results
4.4.5.1 Harmonic evidence of unification
Exploiting the mathematical pattern articulated in table (4.5), EGM predicts the RMS charge
radius and mass-energy of less accurately known particles, comparing them to expert opinion. The
values of “Stω” shown in table (4.5), predict possible particle mass and radii for all Leptons,
Neutrinos, Quarks and Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB’s), in complete agreement with the SM,
PDG estimates and studies by Hirsch et. Al in [6] as shown in table (4.6),
Particle
Proton (p)
Neutron (n)
Electron (e)
Muon (µ
µ)
Tau (ττ)
Electron Neutrino (ν
ν e)
Muon Neutrino (ν
νµ)
160

EGM Radii
x10-16(cm)
rπ = 830.5957
rν = 826.8379
rε = 11.8055
rµ = 8.2165
rτ = 12.2415
ren ≈ 0.0954
rµn ≈ 0.6556

EGM Mass-Energy
(computed or utilised)

PDG Mass-Energy Range
(2005 Values)

Mass-Energy precisely known,
See: National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) [7]
Note: δm = 10-100
men(eV) ≈ 3 - δm
mµn(MeV) ≈ 0.19 - δm

men(eV) < 3
mµn(MeV) < 0.19

A region extensively explored in Particle-Physics experiments.
83

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Tau Neutrino (ν
ν τ)
rτn ≈ 1.9588
mτn(MeV) ≈ 18.2 - δm mτn(MeV) < 18.2
Up Quark (uq)
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 4
ruq ≈ 0.7682
muq(MeV) ≈ 3.5060
Down Quark (dq)
3 < mdq(MeV) < 8
rdq ≈ 1.0136
mdq(MeV) ≈ 7.0121
Strange Quark (sq)
80 < msq(MeV) < 130
rsq ≈ 0.8879
msq(MeV) ≈ 113.9460
1.15 < mcq(GeV) < 1.35
Charm Quark (cq)
mcq(GeV) ≈ 1.1833
rcq ≈ 1.0913
Bottom Quark (bq)
4.1 < mbq(GeV) < 4.4
rbq ≈ 1.071
mbq(GeV) ≈ 4.1196
Top Quark (tq)
169.2 < mtq(GeV) < 179.4
rtq ≈ 0.9294
mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4979
W Boson
80.387 < mW(GeV) < 80.463
rW ≈ 1.2839
mW(GeV) ≈ 80.425
Z Boson
91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897
rZ ≈ 1.0616
mZ(GeV) ≈ 91.1876
Higgs Boson (H)
mH(GeV) ≈ 114.4 + δm mH(GeV) > 114.4
rH ≈ 0.9403
Photon (γγ)
rγγ = ½Kλλh
mγγ ≈ 3.2 x10-45(eV)
mγ < 6 x10-17(eV)
No definitive commitment
Graviton (γγg)
rgg = 2(2/5)rγγ
mgg = 2mγγ
L2 (Lepton)
mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV)
rL ≈ 10.7518 mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)
L3 (Lepton)
L5 (Lepton)
mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)
ν2 (L2 Neutrino)
rν2,ν3,ν5
mν2 ≈ men
Not predicted or considered

ν3 (L3 Neutrino)
mν3 ≈ mµn
ren,µn,τn
ν5 (L5 Neutrino)
mν5 ≈ mτn
QB5 (Quark or Boson) rQB ≈ 1.0052 mQB(5) ≈ 10(GeV)
QB6 (Quark or Boson)
mQB(6) ≈ 22(GeV)
Table 4.6: RMS charge radii and mass-energies of fundamental particles,
where,
i.
“Kλ” denotes a Planck scaling factor, determined to be “(π/2)1/3” in QE3.
ii.
“λh” denotes Planck Length [4.05131993288926 x10-35(m)].
iii.
“rL” and “rQB” denote the average radii of SM Leptons and Quark / Bosons
(respectively) utilised to calculate the mass-energy of the proposed “new particles”.
Note:
iv.
A formalism for the approximation of ν2, ν3 and ν5 mass-energy is shown in QE3.
v.
It is shown in QE3 that the RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton are “λh”
and “1.5λh” respectively, in agreement with Quantum Mechanical (QM) models.
4.4.5.2 Recent developments
4.4.5.2.1 PDG mass-energy ranges
The EGM construct was finalized by Storti et. Al. in 2004 and tested against published PDG
data of the day [i.e. the 2005 values shown in table (4.6)]. Annually, as part of their “continuous
improvement cycle”, the PDG reconciles its published values of particle properties against the latest
experimental and theoretical evidence. The 2006 changes in PDG mass-energy range values not
impacting EGM are as follows:
i.
Strange Quark = “70 < msq(MeV) < 120”.
ii.
Charm Quark = “1.16 < mcq(GeV) < 1.34”.
iii.
“W” Boson = “80.374 < mW(GeV) < 80.432”.
iv.
“Z” Boson = “91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897”.
Therefore, we may conclude that the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified
results within the SM to high computational precision.

84

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4.4.5.2.2 Electron Neutrino and Up / Down / Bottom Quark mass
Particle-Physics research is a highly dynamic field supporting a landscape of constantly
changing hues. The EGM construct relates “mass to size” in harmonic terms. If one applies Eq.
(3.230ii) and utilizes the Proton as the reference particle in accordance with table (4.5), one obtains
a single expression with two unknowns, as implied by Eq. (3.231).
Since contemporary Physics is currently incapable of specifying the mass and size of most
fundamental particles precisely and concurrently, EGM is required to approximate values of either
mass or radius to predict one or the other (i.e. mass or size). Subsequently, the EGM predictions
articulated in table (4.6) denote values based upon estimates of either mass or radius.
Hence, some of the results in table (4.6) are approximations and subject to revision as new
experimental evidence regarding particle properties (particularly mass), come to light. The 2006
changes in PDG mass-energy values affecting table (4.6) are shown below. In this data set, the
EGM radii are displayed as a range relating to its mass-energy influence.
Note: the average value of EGM “Up + Down Quark” mass from table (4.6) [i.e. 5.2574(MeV)]
remains within the 2006 average mass range specified by the PDG [i.e. 2.5 to 5.5(MeV)].
EGM Radii x10-16(cm)

PDG Mass-Energy
Range (2006 Values)
men(eV) < 2
Electron Neutrino (ν
νe) ren < 0.0811
PDG Mass-Energy
Up Quark (uq)
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3
0.5469 < ruq < 0.7217
Range
(2006
Values)
Down Quark (dq)
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
0.7217 < rdq < 1.0128
Bottom Quark (bq)
1.0719 > rbq > 1.0863
4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
Table 4.7: RMS charge radii and mass-energies of fundamental particles,
Particle

EGM Mass-Energy
(utilised)

The predicted radii ranges above demonstrate that no significant deviation from table (4.6)
values exists. This emphasizes that the EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles is a
robust formulation and is insensitive to minor fluctuations in particle mass, particularly in the
absence of experimentally determined RMS charge radii.
Therefore, we may conclude that the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified
results within the SM to high computational precision.
4.4.5.2.3 Top Quark mass
4.4.5.2.3.1 The dilemma
The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and “D-ZERO” (D0) Collaborations have recently
revised their world average value of “Top Quark” mass from “178.0(GeV/c2)” in 2004 [8] to,
“172.0” in 2005 [9], “172.5” in early 2006, then “171.4” in July 2006. [10]
Note: since the precise value of “mtq” is subject to frequent revision, we shall utilise the 2005 value
in the resolution of the dilemma as it sits between the 2006 values.
4.4.5.2.3.2 The resolution
The EGM method utilizes fundamental particle RMS charge radius to determine mass.
Currently, Quark radii are not precisely known and approximations were applied in the formulation
of “mtq” displayed in table (4.6). However, if one utilizes the revised experimental value of “mtq =
172.0(GeV/c2)” to calculate the RMS charge radius of the Top Quark “rtq”, based on Proton
85

www.deltagroupengineering.com

harmonics, it is immediately evident that a decrease in “rtq” of “< 1.508(%)” produces the new
world average value precisely. The relevant calculations may be performed simply as follows,
The revised “Top Quark” radius based upon the “new world average Top Quark” mass,
5

GeV
172.
2
1 .
c
r π.
9
mp
140

2

= 0.9156 10

16 .

cm

(4.5)

The decrease in “Top Quark” RMS charge radius [relative to the table (4.6) value] based upon the
“new world average Top Quark” mass becomes,
r tq

1 = 1.5076 ( % )

5

GeV
172.
2
1 .
c
r π.
9
mp
140

2

(4.6)

where, “rtq” denotes the RMS charge radius of the “Top Quark” from table (4.6).
Therefore, since the change in “rtq” is so small and its experimental value is not precisely known,
we may conclude the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified results within the
SM to high computational precision.
Note: the 2006 value for revised “mtq” modifies the error defined by Eq. (4.6) to “< 1.65(%)”.
4.4.6 Discussion
4.4.6.1 Experimental evidence of unification
Table (4.5, 4.6, 4.7) display mathematical facts demonstrating that all fundamental particles
may be represented as harmonics of an arbitrarily selected reference particle, in complete agreement
with the SM. Considering that the EGM method is so radically different and quantifies the physical
world beyond contemporary solutions, one becomes tempted to disregard table (4.5, 4.6, 4.7) in
favour of concluding these to be “coincidental”.
However, it is inconceivable that such precision from a single paradigm spanning the entire
family of fundamental particles could be “coincidental”. The derivation of the “Top Quark” massenergy is in itself, an astonishing result that the SM is currently incapable of producing.
Moreover, the derivation of (a), EM radii characteristics of the Proton and Neutron (rπE, rπM
and rνM) (b), the classical RMS charge radius of the Proton (c), the 1st term of the Hydrogen atom
spectrum “λA” and (d), the Bohr radius “rx”: all from the same paradigm, strengthens the harmonic
case.
Additionally, QE3 demonstrates that the probability of coincidence is “<< 10-38” based upon
the results shown in table (4.8),
Particle / Atom EGM Prediction (QE3)
Proton (p)
rπ = 830.5957 x10-16(cm)
rπE = 848.5274 x10-16(cm)
rπM = 849.9334 x10-16(cm)
rp = 874.5944 x10-16(cm)
Neutron (n)
rν = 826.8379 x10-16(cm)
KS = -0.1133 x10-26(cm2)

Experimental Measurement
rπ = 830.6624 x10-16(cm) [2]
rπE = 848 x10-16(cm) [11,12]
rπM = 857 x10-16(cm) [11,12]
rp = 875.0 x10-16(cm) [7]
rX ≈ 825.6174 x10-16(cm)
KX = -0.113 x10-26(cm2) [3]
86

(%) Error
< 0.008
< 0.062
< 0.825
< 0.046
< 0.148
< 0.296

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Neutron (n)
Top Quark (tq)
Hydrogen (H)

where,
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

rνM = 878.9719 x10-16(cm)
rνM = 879 x10-16(cm) [11,12]
mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4979
mtq(GeV) ≈ 172.0 [9]
λA = 657.3290(nm)
λB = 656.4696(nm) [13]
rx = 0.0527(nm)
rBohr = 0.0529(nm) [7]
Table 4.8: experimentally verified EGM predictions,

< 0.003
< 3.64
< 0.131
< 0.353

“rπE” and “rπM” denote the Electric and Magnetic radii of the Proton respectively.
“rX” denotes the conversion of the experimentally determined implicit conventional form
“KX” to the explicit EGM form.
“rνM” denotes the Magnetic radius of the Neutron.
“λA” and “λB” denote the first term of the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer series).
“rp = 875.0 x10-16(cm)” and “rBohr = 0.0529(nm)” are not experimental values, they
denote the classical RMS charge radius of the Proton and the Bohr radius, i.e. the official
values listed by NIST.

Note: numerical simulations generating all values in table (4.5, 4.6, 4.8) can be found in QE3.
4.4.6.2 The answers to some important questions
4.4.6.2.1 What causes harmonic patterns to form?
4.4.6.2.1.1 ZPF equilibrium
A free fundamental particle is regarded by EGM as a “bubble” of energy equivalent mass.
Nature always seeks the lowest energy state: so surely, the lowest state for a free fundamental
particle “should be” to diffuse itself to “non-existence” in the absence of “something” acting to
keep it contained?
This provokes the suggestion that a free fundamental particle is kept contained by the
surrounding space-time manifold. In other words, free fundamental particles are analogous to
“neutrally buoyant bubbles” floating in a locally static fluid (the space-time manifold). EGM is an
approximation method, developed by the application of standard engineering tools, which finds the
ZPF equilibrium point between the mass-energy equivalence of the particle and the space-time
manifold (the ZPF) surrounding it - as depicted by Fig. (4.4).
4.4.6.2.1.2 Inherent quantum characteristics
If one assumes that the basic nature of the Universe is built upon quantum states of
existence, it follows that ZPF equilibrium is a common and convenient feature amongst free
fundamental particles by which to test this assumption. Relativity tells us that no absolute frames of
reference exist, so a logical course of action is to define a datum as EGM is derived from a
gravitational base. In our case, it is an arbitrary choice of fundamental particle.
To be representative of the quantum realm, it follows that ZPF equilibrium between free
fundamental particles should also be analogous to quantum and fractional quantum numbers – as
one finds with the “Quantum Hall Effect”. Subsequently, the harmonic patterns of table (4.5) form
because the determination of ZPF equilibrium is applied to inherently quantum characteristic
objects – i.e. fundamental particles.
Hence, it should be no surprise to the reader that comparing a set of inherently quantum
characterised objects to each other, each of which may be described by a single wavefunction at its
harmonic cut-off frequency, results in a globally harmonic description. That is, the EGM harmonic
representation of fundamental particles is a quantum statement of ZPF equilibrium – as one would
expect. In-fact, it would be alarming if table (4.5), or a suitable variation thereof, could not be
formulated.
87

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Therefore, harmonic patterns form due to inherent quantum characteristics and ZPF equilibrium.
4.4.6.2.2 Why haven’t the “new” particles been experimentally detected?
EGM approaches the question of particle existence, not just by mass as in the SM, but also
harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ” (i.e. by mass and ZPF equilibrium). Storti et. Al. showed in QE3
that the bulk of the PV spectral energy161 at the surface of the Earth exists well above the “THz”
range. Hence, generalizing this result to any mass implies that the harmonic cut-off period162 “TΩ”
defines the minimum detection interval to confirm (or refute) the existence of the proposed “L2, L3,
L5” Leptons and associated “ν2, ν3, ν5” Neutrinos. In other words, a particle exists for at least the
period specified by “TΩ” – i.e. its minimum lifetime.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) approaches this question from a highly useful, but extremely
limited perspective compared to the EGM construct. QFT utilizes particle mass to determine the
minimum detection period (in terms of eV) to be designed into experiments. To date, this approach
has been highly successful, but results in the conclusion that no new Leptons exist beyond the SM
in the mass-energy range specified by the proposed Leptons. Whilst QFT is a highly useful
yardstick, it is by no means a definitive benchmark to warrant termination of exploratory
investigations for additional particles.
Typically in the SM, short-lived particles are seen as resonances in cross sections of data
sets and many Hadrons in the data tables are revealed in this manner. Hence, the SM asserts that the
more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and the greater the likelihood of detection.
The EGM construct regards the existing Leptons of the SM as long-lived particles. It also
asserts that the SM does not adequately address the existence or stability of the extremely shortlived Leptons proposed. This assertion is supported by the fact that detection of these particles is
substantially beyond current capabilities due to:
i.
The minimum detection interval (with negligible experimental error) being “< 10-29(s)”.
ii.
The possibility that the proposed Leptons are transient (intermediate) states of particle
production processes, which decay before detection. For example, perhaps an Electron
passes through an “L2” phase prior to stabilization to Electronic form (for an appropriate
production process). Subsequently, this would be not be detected if the transition process
is very rapid and the accelerator energies are too low.
iii.
The possibility of statistically low production events.
Hence:
iv.
The proposed Leptons are too short-lived to appear as resonances in cross-sections.
v.
The SM assertion that the more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and
the greater the likelihood of detection is invalid for the proposed Leptons.
Therefore, contemporary particle experiments are incapable of detecting the proposed Leptons at
the minimum accelerator energy levels required to refute the EGM construct.
4.4.6.2.3 Why can all fundamental particles be described in harmonic terms?
Because of the precise experimental and mathematical evidence presented in table (4.5, 4.6,
4.8). These results were achieved by construction of a model based upon a single gravitational
paradigm. Moreover, Storti et. Al. also derives the Casmir force in QE3 utilising Eq. (3.63, 3.67,
3.73).

161
162

“>> 99.99(%)”.
The inverse of “ωΩ”.
88

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4.4.6.2.4 Why is EGM a method and not a theory?
EGM is a method and not a theory because: (i) it is an engineering approximation and (ii),
the mass and size of most subatomic particles are not precisely known. It harmonizes all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen reference particle by parameterising ZPF
equilibrium in terms of harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ”.
The formulation of table (4.5) is a robust approximation based upon PDG data. Other
interpretations are possible, depending on the values utilised. For example, if one re-applies the
method presented in QE3 based upon other data; the values of “Stω” in table (4.5) might differ.
However, in the absence of exact experimentally measured mass and size information, there is little
motivation to postulate alternative harmonic sequences, particularly since the current formulation
fits the available experimental evidence extremely well.
If all mass and size values were exactly known by experimental measurement, the main
sequence formulated in QE3 (or a suitable variation thereof) will produce a precise harmonic
representation of fundamental particles, invariant to interpretation. Table (4.5) values cannot be
dismissed due to potential multiplicity before reconciling how:
i. “ωΩ”, which is the basis of the table (4.5) construct, produces Eq. (3.199, 3.200) as
derived in QE3. These generate radii values substantially more accurate than any other
contemporary method. In-fact, it is a noteworthy result that EGM is capable of
producing the Neutron MS charge radius as a positive quantity. Conventional techniques
favour the non-intuitive form of a negative squared quantity.
ii. “ωΩ” is capable of producing “a Top Quark” mass value – the SM cannot.
iii. EGM produces the results defined in table (4.8).
iv. Extremely short-lived Leptons [i.e. with lifetimes of “< 10-29(s)”] cannot exist, or do not
exist for a plausible harmonic interpretation.
v. Any other harmonic interpretation, in the absence of exact mass and size values
determined experimentally, denote a superior formulation.
Therefore, EGM is a method facilitating the harmonic representation of fundamental particles.
4.4.6.2.5 What would one need to do, in order to disprove EGM?
Explain how experimental measurements of charge radii and mass-energy by international
collaborations such as CDF, D0, L3, SELEX and ZEUS in [2,8-10,14-17], do not correlate to EGM
calculations.
4.4.6.2.6 Why does EGM produce current and not constituent Quark masses?
The EGM method is capable of producing current and constituent Quark masses; only
current Quark masses are presented herein. This manuscript is limited to current Quark masses
because it is the simplest example of ZPF equilibrium applicable whereby a particle is treated as “a
system” and the equilibrium radius is calculated.
Determination of the constituent Quark mass is a more complicated process, but the method
of solution remains basically the same. For example, Storti et. Al. calculate an experimentally
implicit value of the Bohr radius in QE3 by treating the atom as “a system” in equilibrium with the
polarised ZPF.
4.4.6.2.7 Why does EGM yield only the three observed families?
This occurs because it treats all objects with mass as a system (e.g. the Bohr atom) in
equilibrium with the polarised ZPF (the objects own gravitational field). Therefore, since
89

www.deltagroupengineering.com

fundamental particles with classical form factor denote fundamental states (or systems: Quarks in
the Proton and Neutron) of polarised ZPF equilibrium, it follows that only the three families will be
predicted.
4.5

What may the periodic table of elementary particles look like under EGM?

Assuming “QB5,6” to be Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB's), we shall conjecture that the
periodic table of elementary particles may be constructed as follows,
Types of Matter
Group II
Group III
Up
14 Charm
42 Top
140
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
uq
cq
tq
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3
≈ 1.1833(GeV)
≈ 172.0(GeV)
56
Down
14 Strange
28 Bottom
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
dq
sq
bq
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
≈ 113.9460(MeV)
Electron
2 Muon
8 Tau
12
-1,1/2
-1,1/2
-1,1/2
e
µ
τ
= 0.5110(MeV)
= 105.7(MeV)
= 1.777(GeV)
Electron Neutrino
2 Muon Neutrino
8 Tau Neutrino
12
0,1/2
0,1/2
0,1/2
νe
νµ
ντ
< 2(eV)
< 0.19(MeV)
< 18.2(MeV)
L2
4 L3
6 L5
10
-1,1/2
-1,1/2
-1,1/2
L2
L3
L5
≈ 9(MeV)
≈ 57(MeV)
≈ 566(MeV)
L2 Neutrino
4 L3 Neutrino
6 L5 Neutrino
10
0,1/2
0,1/2
0,1/2
ν2
ν3
ν5
≈ men
≈ mµn
≈ mτn
Standard Model and EGM Bosons
Photon
N/A Gluon
? QB6
84 Z Boson
112
-6
1,Colour,1
1,Weak Charge,10
1,Weak Charge,10-6
1,Charge,α
gl
Q B6
Z
γ
-45
<
10(MeV)

22(GeV)

91.1875(GeV)
≈ 3.2 x10 (eV)
Graviton
N/A QB5
70 W Boson
98 Higgs Boson
126
2,Energy,10-39
1,Weak Charge,10-6
1,Weak Charge,10-6
0,Higgs Field,?
QB 5
W
H
γg
≈ 10(GeV)
≈ 80.27(GeV)
> 114.4(GeV)
= 2mγγ
Table 4.9: predicted periodic table of elementary particles,
E GM
Leptons

Standard
Model
Leptons

Quarks

Group I

Quarks

Legend
Leptons

Bosons
Stω Name
Stω Name
Stω
Charge(e),Spin,Colour
Charge(e),Spin
Spin,Source,*SC
Symbol
Symbol
Symbol
Mass-Energy
Mass-Energy
Mass-Energy

Name

90

www.deltagroupengineering.com

(i) *Where, “SC” denotes coupling strength at “1(GeV)”. [18]
(ii) The values of “Stω” in table (4.9) utilise the Proton as the reference particle. This is due to its
RMS charge radius and mass-energy being precisely known by physical measurement.
Table 4.9: particle legend,
4.6

Graphical representation of fundamental particles under EGM

Illustrational (only) wavefunction “ψ” [Eq. (3.458)] based on Proton harmonics,
sin St ω .2 .π .ω Ω r π , m p .t

ψ St ω , t

(3.458)

1.
T Ω r π ,m p
2

ψ( 1, t )
ψ( 2, t )
ψ( 4, t )

5 .10

0

29

1 .10

28

1.5 .10

28

2 .10

28

2.5 .10

28

3 .10

28

3.5 .10

28

ψ( 6, t )

t

Proton, Neutron
Electron, Electron Neutrino
L2, v2
L3, v3

Figure 3.44,
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p

16

ψ( 8,t)
ψ ( 10 , t )
ψ ( 12 , t )

0

5 .10

30

1 .10

29

1.5 .10

29

2 .10

29

2.5 .10

29

3 .10

29

3.5 .10

29

4 .10

29

4.5 .10

29

ψ ( 14 , t )

t

Muon, Muon Neutrino
L5, v5
Tau, Tau Neutrino
Up and Down Quark

Figure 3.45,
91

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1 .
T Ω r π ,m p

56

ψ ( 28 , t )
ψ ( 42 , t )
ψ ( 56 , t )

0

1 .10

30

2 .10

30

3 .10

30

4 .10

30

5 .10

30

6 .10

30

30

7 .10

8 .10

30

9 .10

30

3 .10

30

1 .10

29

1.1 .10

29

1.2 .10

29

1.3 .10

29

ψ ( 70 , t )

t

Strange Quark
Charm Quark
Bottom Quark
QB5

Figure 3.46,
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p

168

ψ ( 84 , t )
ψ ( 98 , t )
ψ ( 112 , t )
ψ ( 126 , t )

0

5 .10

31

1 .10

30

1.5 .10

30

2 .10

30

2.5 .10

30

3.5 .10

30

4 .10

30

4.5 .10

30

ψ ( 140 , t )

t

QB6
W Boson
Z Boson
Higgs Boson
Top Quark

Figure 3.47,
4.7

Concluding remarks

A concise mathematical relationship has been used to combine gravitational acceleration and
ElectroMagnetism into a method producing fundamental particle properties to extraordinary
precision. This also results in the representation of fundamental particles as harmonic forms of each
other, beyond the Standard Model – suggesting the following:
i.
The potential for new Physics at higher accelerator energies.
ii.
Physical limitations on the value of two extremely important mathematical constants [i.e.
“π” and “γ”] at the QM level – subject to uncertainty principles.
92

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5 The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos
“Neither fame, nor station, nor reputation is a scientific compass.”
• Riccardo C. Storti
Taken from “Quinta Essentia – Part 4” (QE4)
Abstract
We utilise principles of mass-energy distribution and similitude by ZPF equilibria to derive
the values of the present Hubble constant “H0” and CMBR temperature “T0”. It is demonstrated that
a mathematical relationship exists between the Hubble constant and CMBR temperature such that
“T0” is derived from “H0”. The values derived are “67.0843(km/s/Mpc)” and “2.7248(K)”
respectively. The derivations are possible by assuming that, instantaneously prior to the “BigBang”, the “Primordial Universe” was analogous to a homogeneous Planck scale particle of
maximum permissible energy density, characterised by a single wavefunction. Simultaneously, we
represent the “Milky-Way” as a Planck scale object of equivalent total Galactic mass “MG”, acting
as a Galactic Reference Particle (GRP) characterised by a large number of wavefunctions with
respect to the solar distance from the Galactic centre “Ro”. This facilitates a comparative analysis
between the Primordial and Galactic particle representations by application of a harmonic
relationship, yielding “H0” in terms of “Ro” and “MG”. Consequently, utilising the experimental
value of “T0”, we derive improved estimates for “Ro” and “MG” as being “8.1072(kpc)” and
“6.3142 x1011(solar-masses)” respectively. The construct herein implies that the observed
“accelerated expansion” of the Universe is attributable to the determination of the ZPF energy
density threshold “UZPF” being “< -2.52 x10-13(Pa)”. Moreover, it is graphically illustrated that the
gradient of the Hubble constant in the time domain is presently positive.

93

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.1

Introduction

We extend the principles of Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) to two important aspects of
Cosmology [i.e. the present value of the Hubble constant “H0” and Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation (CMBR) temperature “T0”]. Subsequently, the reader is actively encouraged to review
QE3,4, to obtain a full appreciation of the EGM method.
QE3 develops an equation facilitating the harmonic representation of all fundamental
particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen base particle. It is demonstrated, for example, that the
EGM wavefunction frequency of an Electron “ωΩ(rε,me)” is twice that of the Proton “ωΩ(rπ,mp)”,
and the harmonic relationship between them “Stω” has a value of “2”. Hence, a table of fundamental
particle harmonics was formulated.
This resulted in a relationship between the mass-energy and size of fundamental particles
based upon Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) equilibria. Although the EGM harmonic representation is an
approximation derived from basic engineering principles, it produces experimentally verified
results substantially beyond the current abilities of the Standard Model (SM) of Particle-Physics to
do so, to at least four orders of magnitude.
We utilise the principles of mass-energy distribution and similitude by ZPF equilibria
developed in QE3, to derive “H0” and “T0”. It is demonstrated that a mathematical relationship
exists between the Hubble constant and CMBR temperature such that “T0” is derived from “H0”.
Consequently, this enables the complete and precise specification of the thermodynamic,
inflationary and expansive history of the Universe from the “Big-Bang” to the present day.
Astonishingly, the application of the EGM construct to Cosmology produces “Black-BodyRadiation” curve characteristics, without the application of the “Black-Body-Law”, further
reinforcing the validity of the “H0” and “T0” formulations of approximately “67.0843(km/s/Mpc)”
and “2.7248(K)” respectively. Considering that the experimental tolerance of the CMBR
temperature is presently “2.725 ± 0.001(K)”, it is obvious that any determination within such a
narrow band should be given serious consideration.
The derivation of “H0” and “T0” is possible assuming that, instantaneously prior to the “BigBang”, the “Primordial Universe” was analogous to a homogeneous Planck scale particle of
maximum permissible energy density, characterised by a single EGM wavefunction.
Simultaneously, we represent the “Milky-Way” as a Planck scale object of equivalent total Galactic
mass “MG”, acting as a Galactic Reference Particle (GRP) characterised by a large number of EGM
wavefunctions with respect to the solar distance from the Galactic centre “Ro”.
This facilitates a comparative analysis between the Primordial and Galactic particle
representations utilising the harmonic equation derived in QE3, yielding “H0” in terms of “Ro” and
“MG”. Moreover, we extend the analysis by determining the theoretical frequency shift of a
fictitious EGM wavefunction being radiated from the Primordial particle, yielding “T0” in terms of
“H0”. Consequently, by utilising the measured value of “T0”, we derive improved estimates for “Ro”
and “MG” as being approximately “8.1072(kpc)” and “6.3142 x1011(solar-masses)” respectively.
Because the value of “H0” is still widely debated and the associated experimental tolerance
is much broader than “T0”, the EGM construct implies that the observed “accelerated expansion” of
the Universe is attributable to the determination of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF” being
“< -2.52 x10-13(Pa)”. Moreover, it is graphically illustrated that the gradient of the Hubble constant
in the time domain is presently positive.
Subsequently, it is demonstrated that the majority of what is currently conjectured to
constitute “Dark Matter / Energy” by the scientific community, is nothing more than Photons due to
the definition of a Graviton under the EGM construct. In addition, it is mathematically shown that
the magnitude of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on the value of the Hubble constant and
CMBR temperature is “< 1(%)” such that the Universe is composed of:
• “> 94.4(%) Photons”.
• “< 1(%) Dark Matter / Energy”.
• “4.6(%) Atoms”.
94

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.2

Objectives and scope

Note: all chapter citations refer to QE4.
5.2.1 What is derived?
The present Hubble constant “H0” and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
temperature “T0” denote two of the most important Cosmological phenomenon to have been
identified in the last hundred years and may hold significant insight into the natural philosophy of
the Cosmos. Experimental measurements of “H0” and “T0” are advancing dramatically and have
raised some important aspects regarding the nature of the Cosmological evolution process.
QE4 is a companion to QE3, applying a method termed Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM).
Storti et. Al. derived the EGM construct, utilising Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s) and
Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT)163, to represent fundamental particles in harmonic form to high
computational precision in favourable agreement with the Standard Model (SM) of Particle-Physics
and experimental measurement.
One of the key findings was that, at a fundamental physical level, mass-energy is distributed
over space-time in only one manner164. The EGM construct has been re-applied to Cosmology with
the following derivational objectives (within experimental tolerance where applicable):
i. The Hubble constant (see: Ch. 7.1, 7.3, 7.6, 8.3).
ii. The CMBR temperature (see: Ch. 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 8.1, 8.2).
iii. The ZPF energy density threshold (see: Ch. 7.7).
iv. The Cosmological evolution process (see: Ch. 8.4).
v. The history of the Universe (see: Ch. 8.5).
5.2.2 How is it achieved?
The primary tool employed to achieve our objectives is similitude165, subject to the
following simplified constraints (see: Ch. 6.1, 7.1 – 7.3),
i. The Cosmos at an instant prior to the “Big-Bang” is termed the “Primordial Universe”. It
was characterised by a single wavefunction with maximum permissible energy density
distributed homogeneously, analogous to a Planck scale particle of radius “λxλh” and mass
“mxmh” such that it was dynamically, kinematically and geometrically similar to a
“Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” (SBH).
ii. The relationship between the “Primordial Universe” and its present visible size obeys the
EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles.
iii. The “Milky-Way” (MW) Galaxy may be represented as a Planck scale particle of
homogeneous energy density and equivalent total mass. This configuration has been
termed the Galactic Reference Particle (GRP), such that dynamic, kinematic and
geometric similarity exists between the “Primordial Universe” and the GRP.
5.3

Derivation process

5.3.1 Hubble constant “HU”
i. Utilising harmonic cut-off frequency in “ωΩ_3” form (see: Ch. 5.2.2), derive an expression
for EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J1”: (see: Ch. 5.5),
Output:
163

Refer to the many standard texts relating to DAT’s and BPT.
In accordance with Zero-Point-Field equilibria.
165
A reference to DAT’s and BPT.
164

95

www.deltagroupengineering.com

St J

C Ω_J1( r , M )

9

. M

2

5

8

r

r

(4.52)

where,
St J

9 .c .
St G
4 .π

St G

3.

4



2
9

(4.51)
2

3 .ω h

. c
2

4 .π .h

9

(4.35)

“c = 299792458(m/s)”.
“h = 6.6260693 x10-34(Js)”.
“ωh = 1 / th = 1 / √(Gh/c5), G = 6.6742 x10-11(m3kg-1s-2)”.

ii. Derive an expression for the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL”:
(see: Ch. 6.7.2.2),
Output:
TL

h
m γγ

(4.196)

where,
• “mγγ” denotes the mass-energy of a Photon defined in QE3.
• “mγγ = 3.195095 x10-45(eV)”.
iii. Derive an expression for the EGM Hubble constant “HU” utilising the EGM harmonic
representation of fundamental particles: (see: Ch. 7.1),
Output:
λ y r 2, M 2

K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

ln

1
ln n Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

(4.229)

λ y r 2, M 2
.M
C Ω_J1 λ y r 2 , M 2 .r 3 ,
3
2
C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

H U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

(4.231)

TL
K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

5

(4.233)

1
A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

(4.235)

where, “nΩ_2” denotes the non-refractive form of “nΩ” defined in QE3.
5.3.2 CMBR temperature “TU”
iv. Derive an expression for the average number of Gravitons “ng” radiated by a SBH at
frequency “ω”: (see: Ch. 6.7.1.1),
Output:
n g ω , M BH

E M BH
E g( ω )

(4.177)

where, “MBH” denotes SBH mass.
96

www.deltagroupengineering.com

v. Derive an expression for the value of the EGM Hubble constant at the instant of the “BigBang”, termed the primordial Hubble constant “Hα”: (see: Ch. 7.1.3.2),
Output:
H α r 3, M 3

2.

2. . .
π G ρ m r 3, M 3
3

(4.237)

vi. Derive an expansive scaling factor “KT” incorporating “ng”, “Hα” and “HU”:
(see: Ch. 7.2.3),
Output:
K T r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

n g ω Ω_3 r 3 , M 3 , M 3 .ln

H α r 3, M 3
H U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

(4.240)

where, “ωΩ_3” has a generalised definition according to,
9

ω Ω_3( r , M )

2

M
St G.
5
r

(4.36)

vii. Derive a thermodynamic scaling factor “TW” incorporating Wien’s displacement constant
“KW” and EGM wavelength of the form “λΩ_3”: (see: Ch. 7.2.3),
Output:
T W r 2, r 3, M 2 , M 3

KW
λ Ω_3 R U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 , M 3

(4.241)

where,
“ωΩ_3(r,M) → ωΩ_3(RU(r2,M2,r3,M3),M3)”
“λΩ_3(RU(r2,M2,r3,M3),M3) = c / ωΩ_3(RU(r2,M2,r3,M3),M3)”
R U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

c .A U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

(4.234)

“KW = 2.8977685 x10-3(mK)”.

viii. Derive an expression for EGM Cosmological temperature “TU” utilising “KT” and “TW”:
(see: Ch. 7.2.3),
Output:
T U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

K T r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 .T W r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

(4.242)

5.3.3 “HU → HU2, TU → TU2 → TU3”
ix. Derive the minimum physical dimensions of mass and radius for a SBH with maximum
permissible energy density at the Planck scale: (see: Ch. 6.1.3),
Output:
mx

λx

λx
2

(4.71)

4 . 2
6
π 3

(4.72)

97

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Hence, the dimensions of a SBH at maximum permissible energy density at the Planck scale
is given by,
• “Mass = mxmh” when “mh = √(hc/G)”.
• “Radius = λxλh” when “λh = √(Gh/c3)”.
x. Assume that the “Primordial Universe” (i.e. the Universe instantaneously prior to the
“Big-Bang”) is analogous to a SBH of Planck scale dimensions at a condition of maximum
permissible energy density, with radius “r3 = λxλh” and mass “M3 = mxmh = λxmh / 2”:
(see: Ch. 7.3.1),
xi. Formulate generalised expressions for “r2” and “M2” incorporating the EGM adjusted
Planck Length and mass: (see: Ch. 7.3.1),
Output:
r2(r) = Kλ⋅r

(4.247)

M2(M) = Km⋅M = Kλ⋅M

(4.248)

where, “Kλ = Km = [π / 2](1 / 3) ≈ 1.162447” as defined in QE3.
xii. Simplify “ng”: (see: Ch. 7.3.1, 7.6),
Output:
For “r3 = λxλh” and “M3 = mxmh = λxmh / 2”: “ng[ω,MBH] = ng[ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3] = 8 / 3”.
xiii. Simplify “Hα”: (see: Ch. 7.3.2),
Output:
H α λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ωh
λx

(4.249)

For brevity in future applications, let: “Hα = ωh / λx”.
xiv. Transform “HU” to “HU2”: (see: Ch. 7.6.1),
Output:

H U K λ .r , λ x.λ h , K m.M , m x.m h

H U2( r , M )

(4.276)

xv. Transform “TU” to “TU2”: (see: Ch. 7.5),
Output:
T U2( H )

K W .St T .ln

ωh
λ x.H

9

. H5

(4.275)

where, “H” denotes a generalised reference to Hubble constant and “StT” is a constant
according to.
9

4. 3. 1 . λ x
3 4 c5 π .λ 2
h
3

St T

98

2

(4.274)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

xvi. Transform “TU2” to “TU3”: (see: Ch. 8.1.3),
Output:
T U3 H β

K W .St T .ln

1

. H .H
β α

5 .µ

2

(4.318)

where, “µ = 1 / 3” and “Hβ” denotes a dimensionless range variable such that “1 ≥ Hβ > 0”.
xvii. Select values of “r” and “M” for application to “r2(r), M2(M)” utilising the following
measures: (see: Ch. 7.3.2):
Input:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

“r = Ro” denotes the mean distance from the Sun to the MW Galactic centre.
“Ro = 8(kpc)” as defined by the PDG [19] (“kpc” = kilo-parsec).
“M = MG” denotes the total mass (i.e. visible + dark) of the MW Galaxy.
“MG ≈ 6 x1011” solar masses as defined by [20].
“H0 = 71(km/s/Mpc)” as defined by the PDG [21] (“Mpc” = Mega-parsec).
“T0 = 2.725(K)” as defined by the PDG. [19]

5.3.4 Rate of change “dHdt”
xviii. Derive a generalised expression for the rate of change of the EGM Hubble constant in the
time domain “dHdt” as a function of the dimensionless range variable “Hγ” such that:
“1 ≥ Hγ > 0” and “Hγ ∝ Hβη”: (see: Ch. 8.3.3),
Output:
dH dt H γ

2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

5 .µ

1

(4.361)

Note: “dHdt” is alternative notation introduced to replace the typical differential form
“dH/dt”, for application in the “MathCad 8 Professional” computational environment.
xix. For solutions where the deceleration parameter is zero, derive an expression for the
magnitude of the EGM Hubble constant “|H|” in the time domain166: (see: Ch. 8.3.3),
Output:
d
H
dt

H

(4.378)

xx. Devise a numerical approximation method facilitating the graphical representation of “|H|”
in terms of an indicial power “η” (see: Ch. 8.3.3) such that,
Input:
t

1
H γ .H α

Hγ Hβ

(4.359)

η

(4.376)

166

This terminology is an abbreviated reference to “the square-root of the magnitude of the rate of
change of the Hubble constant in the time domain”, as indicated by the equation.
99

www.deltagroupengineering.com

xxi. For non-zero deceleration parameter solutions, derive the ZPF energy density threshold
“UZPF” (see: Ch. 7.7),
Output:
3 .c .
H U2 R o , M G
Ω ZPF .
8 .π .G
2

U ZPF

2

(4.315)

where,
Ω ZPF

1

Ω EGM

(4.313)

ρ U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

Ω EGM

ρ U2 R o , M G

(4.308)

xxii. Reduce the expression for the EGM Hubble constant and Cosmological temperature to
their simplest functionally dependent forms: “HU5” and “TU5” respectively (see: App. 4.B:
“MathCad 8 Professional – b. Calculation engine – xi”, “MathCad 12 – c. High precision
calculation engine – iv”).
Output:
H U5( r , M )

1 .
ln
TL

T U5( r , M )

( 3 .π )

µ

2

32

256

KW
c

5.4

7 .µ .

µ

µ

. µ m
.ln ( 3 π ) . h
4
M

.
.ln
. 4µ
H U5( r , M ) λ h

2 .µ

7 .µ

2

. r
λh

.

1
π .H α

2
7 .µ

5

.

mh

5 .µ

2

. r
λh

M
2 .µ

2

2
26 .µ

(4.529)

. 2

.H ( r , M ) 5 µ
U5

(4.530)

Sample results

5.4.1 Numerical evaluation and analysis
5.4.1.1 Cosmological properties
Evaluating “AU”, “RU”, “HU” and “TU” yields,
9
A U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 14.575885 10 .yr

(4.250)

9
R U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 14.575885 10 .Lyr

(4.251)

H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 67.084304

km
s .Mpc

(4.254)

T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 2.724752 ( K )

(4.255)

The EGM construct error associated with “HU” and “TU” with respect to expert opinion and
physical measurement is given by,
1 .
H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

1 = 5.515064 ( % )

H0

(4.256)

1 .
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

T0

.
1 = 9.08391310

3

(%)

(4.257)
100

www.deltagroupengineering.com

It is possible to calculate the value of “HU” and “TU” based upon the “visible mass only” of
the MW Galaxy by a simple substitution of values (i.e. “M2 / 3 = KmMG / 3”) as follows,
1
km
H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h = 67.753267
.
3
s Mpc

(4.262)

1
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h = 2.739618 ( K )
3

(4.263)

Hence, the magnitude of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on the value of “HU” and “TU” is
demonstrated to be “< 1(%)” when compared to the previously derived value according to,
H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

1 = 0.987352 ( % )

1
H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h
3
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

(4.264)
1 = 0.542607 ( % )

1
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h
3

(4.265)

A simple test verifying “TU2” is demonstrated below. Since the computed value of
“TU2[HU2(Ro,MG/3)]” based upon visible MW Galactic mass “MG/3” is exactly compliant with “TU”
(i.e. “TU = TU2”), no technical error exists. Moreover, the result “TU2(H0) ≈ T0” agrees precisely
with historical expectation (i.e. prior to measurement by satellite) of “T0”.
1
T U2 H U2 R o , .M G
3
T U2 H 0

=

2.739618
2.810842

( K)

(4.277)

Note: the validation of “TU = TU2” above, also verifies that “HU = HU2”. In addition, it is also
demonstrated and numerically verified in “App. 4.B” that “HU2 = HU5”.
The preceding results demonstrate that the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on “HU” and
“TU” is very small. This implies that the constitution of the Universe under the EGM construct is
quite different from current thinking. The contemporary view167 is that the constitution of the
Universe is,
i. “72(%) Dark Energy”.
ii. “23(%) Dark Matter”.
iii. “4.6(%) Atoms”.
However, the EGM construct generalises the constitution of the Universe as being,
iv. “> 94.4(%) Photons”.
v. “< 1(%) Dark Matter / Energy”.
vi. “4.6(%) Atoms”.
For solutions where the deceleration parameter is zero, “η” may be numerically
approximated utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands within the “MathCad 8 Professional”
computational environment, subject to the constraint that “dHdt” as a function of the present value
of “Hβ” [i.e. “≈ HU2(Ro,MG) / Hα”] raised to an indicial power, is equal to the square of the present
Hubble constant as determined by the EGM construct “HU2(Ro,MG)2” according to the following
algorithm,

167

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
101

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Given
dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η

H U2 R o , M G

η

1

(4.379)

Find( η )

(4.380)

Hence, “η = 4.595349”.
5.4.1.2 Significant temporal ordinates
(See: Ch. 8.3.4)
Significant temporal ordinates of Cosmological evolutionary events (marked on the
proceeding graphs) are given in matrix form as follows,
1

t1

e

2
5 .µ .


10 .µ

t2

1

e

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

t3 e

2

. 1

2.206287 2.206287
4.196153 4.196153

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

3

2

. 1

e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

t5 e

10

42 .

s

20.932666 20.932666
8.385263 8.385263

1

t4

= 6.205726 6.205726

1

2

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 1

1

2

. 1

(4.384)

where, “t5” denotes the temporal ordinate of the local minima of the “2nd” time derivative of the
Hubble constant (see: Ch. 8.3.3, 8.3.6.10).

102

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.4.2
5.4.2.1

Graphical evaluation and analysis
Average Cosmological temperature vs. age

(See: Ch. 8.2.5.1, 8.2.5.2)
Av. Cosmological Temperature vs. Age
1

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β

t1

3 .1031

1
T U3 e

T U3 e

T U3 e

5 .µ

2

2 .1031

2
10 .µ
1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
2
5µ 5µ 5µ
3

1 .1031

1 .10

43

1 .10

42

1 .10

41

1 .10

40

1 .10
1

39

1 .10

38

1 .10

37

1 .10

36

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

Figure 4.24,
Av. Cosmological Temperature vs. Age
t2t3

3 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

T U3 e

T U3 e

5 .µ

2

2 .1031

2
1
10 .µ
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
2
2
2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
3

1 .1031

1 .10

43

1 .10

42

1 .10

41

1 .10

40

1 .10
1

39

1 .10

38

1 .10

37

1 .10

36

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

Figure 4.25,

103

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.4.2.2

Magnitude of the Hubble constant vs. Cosmological age

(See: Ch. 8.3.6.11, 8.3.6.12)
Mag. of Hubble Cons. vs. Cosm. Age
2.5 .10
dH dt H β

dH dt e

η

1
2
5 .µ

2 .10

(Hz)
dH dt e

1

t1

42

1
1.5 .1042

1
dH dt e

42

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
1

1 .1042

5 .10

41

0
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
1
η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

Figure 4.46,
Mag. of Hubble Cons. vs. Cosm. Age
2.5 .10
dH dt H β

dH dt e

η

1
2
5 .µ

2 .10

(Hz)
dH dt e

1

t4

42

1
1.5 .1042

1
dH dt e

42

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
2
4
5 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
1

1 .1042

5 .10

41

0
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
1
η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

Figure 4.47,

104

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.4.3 Cosmological evolution process
Based upon the preceding graphical output, the Cosmological evolution process may be
categorised into two regimes, comprised of four distinct periods (i.e. three inflationary and one
expansive) as follows,
Time
Temperature
Hubble Constant
-1
-∞ < TU2 < 0
+∞ > |H| > Hα
0 < t < Hα
0 → Hα-1
-∞ → 0
+∞ → Hα
-1
-1
0 ≤ TU2 < TU2(t1 )
Hα ≥ |H| > 0
Hα ≤ t < t1
Hα-1 → t1
0 → TU2(t1-1)
Hα → 0
-1
-1
t1 ≤ t < t4
TU2(t1 ) ≥ TU2 > TU2(t4 )
0 ≤ |H| < √|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|
-1
-1
t1 → t4
TU2(t1 ) → TU2(t4 )
0 → √|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|
t4 ≤ t < AU
TU2(t4-1) ≥ TU2 ≥ TU2(HU2)
√|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]| ≥ |H| ≥ HU2
-1
t4 → AU
TU2(t4 ) → TU2(HU2)
√|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]| → HU2
Description
Primordial Inflation (prior to the “Big-Bang”): the Universe may be described as
“inverted and non-physical” such that the interior of the Cosmos existed outside
the exterior boundary “RBH” in accordance with the “Primordial Universe” model
described in Ch. (7, 8) such that:
1. “TU2” increases from negative infinity to zero.
2. “dHdt” increases from negative infinity to “-Hα2”.
3. “|H|” decreases from positive infinity to “Hα”.
Thermal Inflation: the period from the instant of the “Big-Bang” to the instant of
maximum Cosmological temperature such that:
4. “TU2” increases from zero to its maximum value “TU2(t1-1)”.
5. “dHdt” increases from “-Hα2” to zero.
6. “|H|” decreases from “Hα” to zero.
Hubble Inflation: the period from the instant of maximum Cosmological
temperature to the instant of maximum post-primordial “|H|” such that:
7. “TU2” decreases from its maximum value to “TU2(t4-1)”.
8. “dHdt” increases from zero to its maximum physical value “dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]”.
9. “|H|” increases from zero to its maximum physical value “√|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|”.
Hubble Expansion: the period from the maximum post-primordial “|H|” to the
present day such that:
10. “TU2” decreases from “TU2(t4-1)” to “TU2(HU2)”.
11. “dHdt” decreases from its maximum physical value to “HU22”.
12. “|H|” decreases from its maximum physical value to “HU2”.
Symbol
Definition / Value
The EGM Hubble constant at the instant of the “Big-Bang”:

≈ 2.742004 x1042(Hz) ≈ 8.460941 x1061(km/s/Mpc)
-Hα2
≈ -7.518587 x1084(Hz2) ≈ -7.158752 x10123(km/s/Mpc)2
HU2
The present value of the EGM Hubble constant:
= HU2(Ro,MG) ≈ 67.084304(km/s/Mpc)
HU22
≈ 4.500304 x103(km/s/Mpc)2
H0
The PDG Hubble constant: ≈ 71(km/s/Mpc)
2
H0
≈ 5.041 x103(km/s/Mpc)2
Hα-1
The instant of the “Big-Bang”: ≈ 3.646967 x10-43(s)
t1
The instant of max. Cosmological temperature: ≈ 2.206287 x10-42(s)
t4
The instant of maximum physical “|H|”: ≈ 2.093267 x10-41(s)

Physical @ {RBH ≥ rS}

Non-Physical
@ {RBH < rS}

Period
Primordial
Inflation
Thermal
Inflation
Hubble
Inflation
Hubble
Expansion
Regime

105

www.deltagroupengineering.com

AU
TU2(Hα)
TU2(t1-1)
TU2(t4-1)
TU2(HU2)
T0
dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]
√|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|
RU
2
Hα ⋅(dHdt[(t4Hα)-1])-1
Hα⋅(√|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|)-1

The EGM Cosmological age: = HU2-1 ≈ 14.575885 x109(yr)
The EGM Cosmological temperature at the instant of the “Big-Bang”:
= 0(K)
The Maximum EGM Cosmological temperature:
≈ 3.195518 x1031(K)
The EGM Cosmological temperature at the instant of maximum physical
“|H|”: ≈ 2.059945 x1031(K)
The present EGM Cosmological temperature:
= TU3(HU2Hα-1) ≈ 2.724752(K)
The present experimentally measured CMBR temperature: ≈ 2.725(K)
The approximated maximum rate of change of the physical EGM
Hubble constant:
≈ 1.553518 x1084(Hz2) ≈ 1.479167 x10123(km/s/Mpc)2
The approximated maximum physical “|H|”:
≈ 1.246402 x1042(Hz) ≈ 3.845994 x1061(km/s/Mpc)
The EGM Cosmological size: = c⋅HU2-1 ≈ 14.575885 x109(Lyr)
≈ 4.839718
≈ 2.199936
Table 4.10,

Time
0
Hα-1 ≈ 3.646967 x10-43(s)
t1 ≈ 2.206287 x10-42(s)
t4 ≈ 2.093267 x10-41(s)
AU ≈ 14.575885 x109(yr)

TU2 (K)
dHdt (km/s/Mpc)2
-∞
-∞
0
≈ -7.158752 x10123
0
≈ 3.195518 x1031
31
≈ 2.059945 x10
≈ 1.479167 x10123
≈ 2.724752
≈ 4.500304 x103
Table 4.11,

|H|| (km/s/Mpc)
+∞
≈ 8.460941 x1061
0
≈ 3.845994 x1061
≈ 67.084304

5.4.4 History of the Universe according to EGM
Utilising “TU2”, the history of the Universe may be articulated as follows,
Epoch or Event

Time Domain
t

Primordial epoch

Grand unification epoch

Electroweak / Quark Epoch

Lepton Epoch

Boundary Temperature Value

1

T U2 H α = 0 ( K )


1

< t 10

34 .

(s)

10-34 < t(s) ≤ 10-10

10-10 < t(s) ≤ 102

1

T U2
10

10

10 .

T U2

( K)

(s)

1

T U2

.
= 1.92400510

28

34 .

. 15 ( K )
= 3.43308810

(s)

1
2.

. 9 ( K)
= 1.01325410

10 ( s )

106

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Photon Epoch

Universe becomes transparent

102 < t(s) ≤ 1013
1013(s) ≈ 3 x105(yr)

T U2

3 x105 < t(yr) ≤ 109

T U2

1
13 .

10

= 978.724031 ( K )

(s)

1
9.

= 11.838588 ( K )

10 ( yr )

109 < t(yr) ≤ 5 x109

First Supernovae

T U2

5 x109 < t(yr) ≤ 14.58 x109

Present Epoch

1
9.

5 .10 ( yr )

= 4.898955 ( K )

T U2 H U2 R o , M G

= 2.724752 ( K )

Table 4.12,
T U2

1

T U2
T U2

1 .( day )
1
.
31 ( day )

T U2
T U2
T U2

1
1 .( s )

1
1 .( yr )
1
2
10 .( yr )

1
3.

1
4.

10 ( yr )

5.5

5.

10 ( yr )
1

T U2

6.

10 ( yr )
1

T U2

7.

10 ( yr )
T U2
T U2
T U2

10 ( yr )
T U2

1

T U2

1

. 7
2.52413210

521.528169

.
3.86401510

147.71262

6

= 1.00307810
. 6

41.823796

1

. 4
8.07751510

11.838588

9
10 .( yr )

.
2.29089210

3.35005

1

.
6.49496110

0.947724

8
10 .( yr )

4
3

( K)

10 .

10
T U2

. 10 1.84076810
. 3
1.2497710

( yr )

1
11 .

10

( yr )

(4.405)

Discussion

5.5.1 Conceptualization
5.5.1.1 “λx”
A physical interpretation of “λx” is possible utilising the Stefan-Boltzmann Law by
considering the energy flux emitted from a “Black-Body” and equating it to the peak average
Cosmological temperature. “λx” is shown to be proportional to the “4th power-root” of the energy
flux of the Universe at the peak average Cosmological temperature (see: App. 4.A).

107

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.5.1.2 “TL”
The minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL” is a simple concept to embrace by
considering all matter to represent a vast store of Gravitons within, being ejected at a uniform rate
with an emission frequency of “ωg” (see: Ch. 6.7.2.2, 6.8).
5.5.1.3 “CΩ_J”
The initial step in conceptualizing the method of solution for the derivation of the Hubble
constant and CMBR temperature presented herein is to understand the nature of EGM Flux
Intensity “CΩ_J”. The EGM construct represents gravitational fields as a spectrum of conjugate
wavefunction pairs, each comprising of a population of Photons.
The spectrum is gravitationally dominated by the energy of the population of conjugate
Photon pairs at the harmonic cut-off frequency168 “ωΩ” (see: Ch. 5.4). Subsequently, all
gravitational objects may be usefully represented by approximation as wavefunction radiators of a
single population of conjugate Photon pairs (see: Ch. 9.2.2.2, 9.2.3.2).
The EGM spectrum is derived from the application of Fourier series Harmonics, involving
the hybridization of “2” spectra (i.e. an amplitude spectrum and a frequency spectrum). The
relationship between “CΩ_J” and harmonic cut-off mode “nΩ” (which also denotes the total number
of modes in the PV spectrum169) is analogous to the relationship between the amplitude and
frequency spectra inherent in Fourier series Harmonics. Thus,
i. “CΩ_J” decreases with Cosmological expansion and is analogous to the decrease in PV
spectral amplitude as the distance to the subject increases (i.e. the gravitational influence
decreases).
ii. Instantaneously after the “Big-Bang”, there were no Galaxies and as the Universe
expanded, energy condensed into matter and the EGM spectrum developed into its current
form such that matter radiates a spectrum of conjugate wavefunction pairs, each
comprising of a population of Photons. Therefore, a single frequency mode describing the
“Primordial Universe” becomes “many modes” when describing matter in the present state
of the Universe. Hence, “nΩ” increases with Cosmological expansion as the distance to the
subject increases.
iii. EGM finds the convergent solution relating “2” spectra of opposing gradient. That is,
“CΩ_J” decreases and “nΩ” increases as the Universe expands.
iv. For solutions to “ωΩ” where the Refractive Index “KPV” approaches unity170, it is
demonstrated that “ωΩ → ωΩ_3” (see: Ch. 5.1, 5.2), consequently “CΩ_J” may be simplified
to “CΩ_J1” (see: Ch. 5.5.1) and a definition stated as follows: EGM Flux Intensity is a
representation of gravitational field strength (i.e. the gradient in the energy density of the
space-time manifold) expressed in “Jansky’s” (Jy).
v. The gravitational forces governing the formation of the “Milky-Way” Galaxy are
equivalent to the gravitational forces responsible for the current state of the Universe as a
whole. Subsequently, the average EGM Flux Intensity of the “Milky-Way” Galaxy is
proportional to the average value of the present Universe and the peak value of the
“Primordial Universe” instantaneously prior to the “Big-Bang”. This means that the EGM
Flux Intensity of the “Milky-Way” Galaxy acts a baseline reference.

168

i.e. the high-end terminal spectral frequency.
The PV spectrum is a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum.
170
The typical representation of “KPV” is an isomorphic weak field approximation to General
Relativity (GR).
169

108

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.5.1.4 “Stω”
The EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles “Stω” demonstrates that the
mass-energy distribution over the space-time manifold at the elementary level, utilising the
condition of ZPF equilibria, occurs in only one manner. The significance of this is that it provokes
an obvious question with respect to Cosmology. That is: “perhaps it applies on a Cosmological
scale?” Simply described, the representation works by expressing the values of “ωΩ” of two
fundamental particles171, as an integer ratio (i.e. a harmonic of the reference particle).
Subsequently, it follows that “CΩ_J” may be expressed in a similar manner as it is derived
utilising “ωΩ”. Thus, if the EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles with respect to
mass-energy distribution over the space-time manifold were universally valid, we would expect that
in order to apply it cosmologically:
i. The ratio of the presently observable Cosmological size “rf”, to the initial size “ri” of the
“Primordial Universe” instantaneously prior to the “Big-Bang”, is proportional to the
corresponding EGM Flux Intensity {i.e. “(rf / ri) ∝ [CΩ_J1(rf) / CΩ_J1(ri)]”}.
ii. The value of “CΩ_J” at the periphery of the “Primordial Universe” (i.e. instantaneously
prior to the “Big-Bang”) is substantially greater than the value at the edge of the presently
observable Universe. That is, the gradient of the energy density of the “Primordial
Universe”, instantaneously prior to the “Big-Bang”, was substantially greater than the
gradient of the energy density at the periphery of the presently observable Universe.
iii. Since the values of wavefunction amplitude in the EGM spectrum decrease inversely with
“nΩ”, and “nΩ” increases with radial displacement, it follows that “some sort” of naturally
logarithmic or exponential relationship should exist between the ratio of the sizes
described above and the associated EGM Flux Intensities.
iv. “Stω9” represents the harmonic relationship between the values of “ωΩ” of two
dimensionally similar particles. Hence, recognising that the frequency and time domains
are interchangeable, we may apply “Stω9” as the ratio of “TL” to the present “Hubble age”
of the Universe by the EGM method “AU”. Hence, it follows that the ratio of the sizes
described above is proportional to the ratio “TL : AU” (see: Ch. 6.7.2.2).
5.5.2 Dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
5.5.2.1 “HU”
The “Primordial Universe” was analogous to a spherical particle on the Planck scale with
radius “r1” and homogeneous mass distribution “M1”, described by a single wavefunction whereas
the presently observable Universe is described by a spectrum of wavefunctions. The maximum
EGM Flux Intensity measured by an observer at the edge of the “Primordial Universe” is given by
“CΩ_J1(r1,M1)”.
Matter radiates Gravitons172 at a spectrum of frequencies such that the Cosmological
majority of it exists in Photonic form, resulting in an approximately homogeneous mass-energy
distribution throughout the Universe whereby any Galactic formation is dynamically, kinematically
and geometrically equivalent to a spherical particle of homogeneous mass distribution and may be
represented as a Planck scale object to be utilised as a Galactic Reference Particle (GRP).
The associated EGM Flux Intensity of the GRP is given by “CΩ_J1(r2,M2)” where, “r2”
denotes the mean “H0” measurement distance173 to the Galactic centre and “M2” represents total
171

One of them being an arbitrarily selected reference particle from which to compare all others.
Coherent populations of conjugate Photon pairs for a minimum period of “TL”.
173
i.e. the distance relative to the Galactic centre from where a physical measurement of “H0” is
performed.
172

109

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Galactic mass (i.e. visible + dark). The definition of “r2” comes from the scientific requirement to
compare calculation or prediction to measurement. Subsequently, one should also utilise parameters
within the same frame of reference as the measurement, against which the construct is being tested.
It is not known by physical validation that “H0” is measured as being the same from all
locations in the Universe. It is believed to be the case by contemporary theory; however it is not
factually known to be true. To verify it physically, one would be required to perform the “H0”
measurement from a significantly different location in space. Thus, to minimise potential modelling
errors, we shall confine “r2” to the same frame of reference174 as the measurement of “H0” (see: Ch.
7.1).
5.5.2.2 “TU”
EGM defines the “Primordial Universe” as a single mode wavefunction, therefore any
temperature calculation must be scaled accordingly for application to black-body radiation (i.e.
black-bodies emit a spectrum of thermal frequencies, not just one). Hence, we would expect that the
peak CMBR temperature since the “Big-Bang” is proportional to the average number of Gravitons
being radiated per harmonic period by the “Primordial Universe” instantaneously prior to the “BigBang” (see: Ch. 7.2).
5.6

Concluding remarks
⇒ The CBMR temperature is a function of the Hubble constant.
⇒ The Hubble constant and CBMR temperature instantaneously prior to the “Big-Bang” is
calculated to be:
• Hα = ωh / λx ≈ 8.460941 x1061(km/s/Mpc).
• TU2[Hα] = 0(K).
⇒ Physical Laws become real instantaneously after the “Big-Bang”. For example, the “2nd Law
of Thermodynamics” is not violated at “TU2[H > Hα]” because “TU2 > 0(K)”.
⇒ The magnitude of the EGM Hubble constant175 at the instant of maximum EGM
Cosmological temperature is graphically illustrated to be:
• |H(t1)| = 0(km/s/Mpc).
⇒ The maximum EGM Cosmological temperature is calculated to be:
• TU2(t1-1) ≈ 3.195518 x1031(K).
⇒ The magnitude of the maximum physical (i.e. post “Big-Bang”) EGM Hubble constant
(abbreviated reference) is calculated to be:
• |H(t4)| = √|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]| ≈ 3.845994 x1061(km/s/Mpc).
⇒ The EGM Cosmological temperature at the instant of maximum physical EGM Hubble
constant (abbreviated reference) is calculated to be:
• TU2(t4-1) ≈ 2.059945 x1031(K).

174

The solar system.
This terminology is an abbreviated reference to “the square-root of the magnitude of the rate of
change of the Hubble constant in the time domain”.

175

110

www.deltagroupengineering.com

⇒ The present EGM Hubble constant and average EGM Cosmological temperature is
calculated to be:
• HU2(Ro,MG) ≈ 67.084304(km/s/Mpc).
• TU2[HU2(Ro,MG)] ≈ 2.724752(K).
⇒ The present CMBR temperature is measured to be:
• T0 ≈ 2.725 ± 0.001(K).
⇒ The present Hubble constant is stated by the PDG176 to be:
• H0 = 71, +1/-2(km/s/Mpc).
⇒ The EGM Cosmological temperature based upon the PDG Hubble constant is calculated to
be:
• TU2[H0] ≈ 2.810842(K).
⇒ The Universe is composed of:
• “> 94.4(%) Photons”.
• “< 1(%) Dark Matter / Energy”.
• “4.6(%) Atoms”.
⇒ The magnitude of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on the value of the Hubble constant
and CMBR temperature is “< 1(%)”.
⇒ The EGM construct exhibits characteristics satisfying the observed phenomena of
“accelerated Cosmological expansion” due to:
• The ZPF energy density threshold value “UZPF < -2.52 x10-13(Pa)”.
• The gradient of the Hubble constant in the time domain is presently positive.
On a human scale, this translates to levels of ZPF energy according to,
i. “< -252(yJ/mm3)”.
On an astronomical scale, this becomes,
ii. “< -0.252(mJ/km3)”.
iii. “< -7.4 x1012(YJ/pc3)”.
On a Cosmological scale, this becomes,
iv. “< -6.6 x1041(YJ/RU3)”.
The deceleration parameter,
v. “ΩEGM” may be utilised to obtain non-zero deceleration parameter solutions.
Note: although on the human scale the quantities of ZPF energy are extremely small, on the
astronomical or Cosmological scales, they become extremely large when approaching the
dimensions of the visible Universe according to “RU → RU(KλRo,λxλh,KmMG,mxmh)”.

176

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/hubblerpp.pdf (pg. 20 - “WMAP + All”).

111

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7

Graphical summary

5.7.1

“TU3 vs. Hβ”: Figure 4.22
Av. Cosmological Temperature

1

31
3.5 .10
e

5 .µ

2

3 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

2.5 .1031

31
2 .10

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

5 .µ

2
1.5 .1031

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1

0.1

0.01

1 .10 3

Dimensionless Range Variable

1 .10 4

1 .10 5

1 .10 6

Average Cosmological Temperature
Maximum Av. Cosmological Temperature

112

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Maximum Av. Cosrature

5.7.2

“TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.23
Av. Cosmological Temperature vs. Age

1

31
3.5 .10

2

1

e

5 .µ . 1

3 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

2.5 .1031

31
2 .10

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

5 .µ

2

1.5 .1031

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36

1

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

113

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.3

“TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.24
Av. Cosmological Temperature vs. Age
1

31
3.5 .10

t1

3 .1031

2.5 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

T U3 e

T U3 e

5 .µ

2
31
2 .10

2
10 .µ
1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
1.5 .1031

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
2
5µ 5µ 5µ
3

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36

1

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

114

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.4

“TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.25
Av. Cosmological Temperature vs. Age
t2

31
3.5 .10

t3

3 .1031

2.5 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

T U3 e

T U3 e

5 .µ

2
31
2 .10

2
10 .µ
1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
1.5 .1031

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
2
5µ 5µ 5µ
3

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36

1

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

115

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.5

“TU3 vs. H = (HβHα)” (i): Figure 4.26
Av. Cosmological Temp. vs. Hubble Cons.

31
3.5 .10
1
t1

31
3 .10

2.5 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

2
5 .µ
2 .1031
2

T U3 e

T U3 e

10 .µ
1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
31
2
2
1.5 .10
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
3

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .1043

1 .1042

1 .1041

1 .1040

1 .1039

1 .1038

1 .1037

1 .1036

H β .H α
Hubble Constant (Hz)

116

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.6

“TU3 vs. H = (HβHα)” (ii): Figure 4.27
Av. Cosmological Temp. vs. Hubble Cons.

31
3.5 .10
1
1
t2 t3

31
3 .10

2.5 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

2
5 .µ
2 .1031
2

T U3 e

T U3 e

10 .µ
1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
31
2
2
1.5 .10
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
3

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .1043

1 .1042

1 .1041

1 .1040

1 .1039

1 .1038

1 .1037

1 .1036

H β .H α
Hubble Constant (Hz)

117

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.7

“TU3 vs. r = (HβHα)-1c” (i): Figure 4.28
Av. Cosmological Temperature vs. Size
c

31
3.5 .10

t 1 .c

31
3 .10

2.5 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

2
5 .µ
2 .1031
2

T U3 e

T U3 e

10 .µ
1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
31
1.5 .10

2
2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
3

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .10 34

1 .10 33

1 .10 32

1 .10 31

1 .10 30

1 .10 29

1 .10 28

1 .10 27

1.
c

H β .H α
EGM Cosmological Size (m)

118

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.8

“TU3 vs. r = (HβHα)-1c” (ii): Figure 4.29
Av. Cosmological Temperature vs. Size

31
3.5 .10

t 2 .c t 3 .c

31
3 .10

2.5 .1031

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

2
5 .µ
2 .1031
2

T U3 e

T U3 e

10 .µ
1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1
31
1.5 .10

2
2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
3

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .10 34

1 .10 33

1 .10 32

1 .10 31

1 .10 30

1 .10 29

1 .10 28

1 .10 27

1.
c

H β .H α
EGM Cosmological Size (m)

119

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.9

“dTU4/dt vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.30
1st Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

1 .1072
t1

t2

71
8 .10

6 .1071

4 .1071

71
2 .10
dT dt

H β .H α

1
0

(K/s)

dT dt t 1
dT dt t 2
dT dt t 3

2 .1071

4 .1071

71
6 .10

71
8 .10

1 .1072

72
1.2 .10
1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

120

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.10

“dTU4/dt vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.31
1st Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

1 .1072
t2

t3

71
8 .10

6 .1071

4 .1071

71
2 .10
dT dt

H β .H α

1
0

(K/s)

dT dt t 1
dT dt t 2
dT dt t 3

2 .1071

4 .1071

71
6 .10

71
8 .10

1 .1072

72
1.2 .10
1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

121

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.11

“d2TU4/dt2 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.32
2nd Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

113
5 .10
t1

t2

0

113
5 .10

(K/s^2)

dT2 dt2

H β .H α

1
1 .10114

dT2 dt2 t 1
dT2 dt2 t 2
dT2 dt2 t 3

114
1.5 .10

2 .10114

114
2.5 .10

114
3 .10
2 .10 42

3 .10 42

4 .10 42

5 .10 42

6 .10 42

7 .10 42

8 .10 42

9 .10 42
1 .10 41
1
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

122

1.1 .10 41 1.2 .10 41 1.3 .10 41 1.4 .10 41 1.5 .10 41

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.12

“d2TU4/dt2 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.33
2nd Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

113
5 .10
t2

t3

0

113
5 .10

(K/s^2)

dT2 dt2

H β .H α

1
1 .10114

dT2 dt2 t 1
dT2 dt2 t 2
dT2 dt2 t 3

114
1.5 .10

2 .10114

114
2.5 .10

114
3 .10
2 .10 42

3 .10 42

4 .10 42

5 .10 42

6 .10 42

7 .10 42

8 .10 42

9 .10 42
1 .10 41
1
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

123

1.1 .10 41 1.2 .10 41 1.3 .10 41 1.4 .10 41 1.5 .10 41

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.13

“|d3TU4/dt3| vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.34
3rd Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

157
1 .10
t1

t2

156
1 .10

(K/s^3)

dT3 dt3

H β .H α

1 .10155
1

dT3 dt3 t 1
dT3 dt3 t 2
1 .10154

153
1 .10

152
1 .10
2 .10 42

3 .10 42

4 .10 42

5 .10 42

6 .10 42

7 .10 42

8 .10 42

9 .10 42

1 .10 41
1

1.1 .10 41

1.2 .10 41

1.3 .10 41

1.4 .10 41

1.5 .10 41

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

124

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.14

“|d3TU4/dt3| vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.35
3rd Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

157
1 .10
t2

t3

156
1 .10

(K/s^3)

dT3 dt3

H β .H α

1 .10155
1

dT3 dt3 t 1
dT3 dt3 t 2
1 .10154

153
1 .10

152
1 .10
2 .10 42

3 .10 42

4 .10 42

5 .10 42

6 .10 42

7 .10 42

8 .10 42

9 .10 42

1 .10 41
1

1.1 .10 41

1.2 .10 41

1.3 .10 41

1.4 .10 41

1.5 .10 41

H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

125

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.15

“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.36
1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
1.6 .1084

t1

t4

84
1.4 .10

84
1.2 .10
dH dt H β

(Hz^2)

dH dt e

dH dt e

dH dt e

η

5 .µ

1
2

1 .1084
1

1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

8 .1083

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
1
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
2

83
6 .10

83
4 .10

2 .1083

0
0

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36

1

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

126

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.16

“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.37
1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
2 .1084
1

t1

84
1 .10

0
0

dH dt H β

(Hz^2)

dH dt e

η

5 .µ

1
2

1 .1084

1

84
2 .10

1
dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

3 .1084
2

dH dt e

1
2

5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
1
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
2

84
4 .10

5 .1084

6 .1084

84
7 .10

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36

1

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

127

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.17

“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.38
1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
2 .1084
t2

t3

84
1 .10

0
0

dH dt H β

(Hz^2)

dH dt e

η

5 .µ

1
2

1 .1084

1

84
2 .10

1
dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

3 .1084
2

dH dt e

1
2

5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
1
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
2

84
4 .10

5 .1084

6 .1084

84
7 .10

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36

1

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

128

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.18

“dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iv): Figure 4.39
1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
2 .1084
t5

t4

84
1 .10

0
0

dH dt H β

(Hz^2)

dH dt e

η

5 .µ

1
2

1 .1084

1

84
2 .10

1
dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

3 .1084
2

dH dt e

1
2

5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
1
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
2

84
4 .10

5 .1084

6 .1084

84
7 .10

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36

1

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

129

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.19

“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.40
2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant
1

4 .10127

t1

127
3.5 .10

3 .10127

(Hz^3)

2.5 .10127

dH2 dt2 H β

η
127
2 .10

127
1.5 .10

1 .10127

5 .10126

0
0

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

130

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.20

“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.41
2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant
t2

4 .10127

t3

127
3.5 .10

3 .10127

(Hz^3)

2.5 .10127

dH2 dt2 H β

η
127
2 .10

127
1.5 .10

1 .10127

5 .10126

0
0

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

131

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.21

“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.42
2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant
t5

4 .10127

t4

127
3.5 .10

3 .10127

(Hz^3)

2.5 .10127

dH2 dt2 H β

η
127
2 .10

127
1.5 .10

1 .10127

5 .10126

0
0

1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

132

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.22

“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iv): Figure 4.43
2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant
125
8 .10

t1

t2

7 .10125

125
6 .10

dH2 dt2 H β

(Hz^3)

dH2 dt2 e

dH2 dt2 e

dH2 dt2 e

η

5 .µ

1
2

125
5 .10

1

1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

4 .10125

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
2
5µ 5µ 5µ
1

125
3 .10

2 .10125

1 .10125
0
0

1 .10125

1 .10 42

1 .10 41
1
η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

133

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.23

“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (v): Figure 4.44
2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant
125
8 .10

t3

t4

7 .10125

125
6 .10

dH2 dt2 H β

(Hz^3)

dH2 dt2 e

dH2 dt2 e

dH2 dt2 e

η

5 .µ

1
2

125
5 .10

1

1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

4 .10125

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
2
5µ 5µ 5µ
1

125
3 .10

2 .10125

1 .10125
0
0

1 .10125

1 .10 42

1 .10 41
1
η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

134

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.24

“d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (vi): Figure 4.45
2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant
125
8 .10

t5

7 .10125

125
6 .10

dH2 dt2 H β

(Hz^3)

dH2 dt2 e

dH2 dt2 e

dH2 dt2 e

η

5 .µ

1
2

125
5 .10

1

1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

4 .10125

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
2
5µ 5µ 5µ
1

125
3 .10

2 .10125

1 .10125
0
0

1 .10125

1 .10 42

1 .10 41
1
η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

135

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.25

“|H| vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.46
Mag. of Hubble Cons. vs. Cosm. Age

2.5 .1042

1

t1

42
2 .10
dH dt H β

dH dt e

5 .µ

η

1
2

1
1.5 .1042

(Hz)

1
dH dt e

dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
1

42
1 .10

5 .1041

0
1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36
1

1 .10 35

1 .10 34

1 .10 33

1 .10 32

1 .10 31

1 .10 30

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

136

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.26

“|H| vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.47
Mag. of Hubble Cons. vs. Cosm. Age

2.5 .1042

1

t4

42
2 .10
dH dt H β

dH dt e

5 .µ

η

1
2

1
1.5 .1042

(Hz)

1
dH dt e

dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
4
2
2
2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
1

42
1 .10

5 .1041

0
1 .10 43

1 .10 42

1 .10 41

1 .10 40

1 .10 39

1 .10 38

1 .10 37

1 .10 36
1

1 .10 35

1 .10 34

1 .10 33

1 .10 32

1 .10 31

1 .10 30

η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

137

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.27

“TU2,3 vs. |H|”: Figure 4.48
Av. Cosmological Temp. vs. Hubble Cons.

31
3.5 .10
1
t1


31
3 .10

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

2.5 .1031

T U2

dH dt H β

η
2 .1031

T U3 H β
1
T U3 e

5 .µ

2
31
1.5 .10

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .1043

1 .1042

1 .1041

1 .1040

1 .1039

1 .1038

1 .1037

1 .1036

η
dH dt H β
, H β .H α
Hubble Constant (Hz)

138

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.7.28

“TU2 vs. |H|”: Figure 4.49
Av. Cosmological Temp. vs. Hubble Cons.

31
3.5 .10
1
t1


31
3 .10

Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

2.5 .1031

T U2

dH dt H β

η 2 .1031

1
T U3 e

5 .µ

2
31
1.5 .10

31
1 .10

5 .1030

1 .1043

1 .1042

1 .1041

1 .1040

1 .1039

1 .1038

1 .1037

1 .1036

η
dH dt H β
Hubble Constant (Hz)

139

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

140

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6 “q0, Λ0”
6.1

SMoC

Two of the most important aspects of Cosmology are the present values of the deceleration
parameter “q0” and the Cosmological constant “Λ0”. In-fact, both these values are so important that
this chapter discusses them exclusively. “q0”177 is a dimensionless measure of the cosmic
acceleration associated with the expansion of the Universe. Recent measurements imply that the
expansion of the Universe is accelerating; “q0” was initially thought to be positive, now it is
believed to be negative. “Λ0”178 was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original
theory of General Relativity (GR) to achieve a stationary Universe.
The contemporary view [i.e. the Standard Model (SM) of Cosmology] is that a problem
exists because most Quantum Field Theories (QFT’s) predict a huge value of “Λ0” from the energy
of the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF). This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an
equally large term of opposite sign. Some SuperSymmetric theories require a value of “Λ0” to be
exactly zero. This is known as the “Λ0” problem179 and no known natural manner exists in which to
derive the miniscule “Λ0” used in Cosmology from Particle-Physics. The SM of Cosmology
(SMoC) defines “q0” as follows180,
q0

Ω0

Λ0

2

3 .H 0

2

(2.34)

where, “Ω0” and “H0” denote the present values of the density parameter and Hubble constant
respectively.
Note: astronomical observations imply that “Λ0” cannot exceed “10-46(km-2)” 181,182.
6.2

EGM

6.2.1 “Ro, MG, ΩEGM, Ω ZPF”
Fortunately, the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) construct does not suffer from the same
afflictions as the SMoC regarding “q0” and “Λ0”. That is, precise and meaningful values of “q0” and
“Λ0” may be derived in agreement with physical observation, from the EGM Particle-Physics model
derived in QE3. Therefore, EGM demonstrates that the SMoC assertion of “no known natural
manner exists in which to derive the miniscule “Λ0” used in Cosmology from Particle-Physics” is
incorrect.
An algorithm is presented in QE4 such that the value of the ZPF density parameter “Ω ZPF” is
derived utilising the difference between the predicted Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
(CMBR) temperature by the EGM method “TU2” and its presently measured value “T0”, facilitated
by improved determinations of Milky-Way Galactic radius “Ro” and total mass “MG” from the
177

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleration_parameter
Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble red-shift indicated that the
Universe might not be stationary. However, the discovery of cosmic acceleration in the “1990’s”
has renewed interest in “Λ0” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant).
179
Believed to be the worst problem of fine-tuning in Physics.
180
http://radio.astro.gla.ac.uk/page184.gif
181
Michael, E., University of Colorado, Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, “The
Cosmological Constant” (http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/lambda.html).
182
i.e. approximately “4.815526 x10-10(Pa)”.
178

141

www.deltagroupengineering.com

application of EGM principles.
Utilising the algorithm defined in QE4 (i.e. considerate of the experimental tolerance of
“T0”)183, a table of corresponding “Ro”, “MG”, “Ω EGM” and “ΩZPF = 1 – ΩEGM” values may be
formulated according to,
Ro (kpc)
M G / MS
7.996943 6.331133 x1011
8.107221 6.314167 x1011
8.218926 6.296982 x1011

ΩEGM
ΩZPF
0.998993 1.006904 x10-3
1.000331 -3.314007 x10-4
1.001671 -1.671006 x10-3
Table 2.9,

CMBR Temp. (K)
T0 – ∆T0 = 2.724
T0 = 2.725
T0 + ∆T0 = 2.726

where, “MS” and “ΩEGM” denote solar mass (i.e. a standard value) and net Cosmological density
parameter as defined by the EGM method respectively.
6.2.2 “ΩZPF → –q0 → qSM_1”
“T0” is higher than the EGM determination184 of “2.724752(K)”; this implies that, because
the Universe is “hotter” than the EGM prediction, it is slightly smaller than expected. This
expectation is clearly set by the “TU2(H)” curve demonstrating that the Universe cools down as it
expands (i.e. as it gets bigger) over time. Subsequently, “something” is acting to retard the
expansion of the Universe.
QE4 attributes this effect to the ZPF energy density threshold value “UZPF” derived from
“ΩZPF”. Hence, assuming null experimental error associated with “T0”, the retardation energy is
negative (i.e. “UZPF < 0”). Subsequently, by precise measurement of “T0”, the EGM construct
facilitates the calculation of Cosmological size. Thus;
i. If the Universe is smaller (i.e. hotter) than predicted by the EGM construct then, “q0 > 0”
and “UZPF < 0”.
ii. If the Universe is larger (i.e. cooler) than predicted by the EGM construct then, “q0 < 0”
and “UZPF > 0”.
Assuming “|ΩZPF| = |q0|”, a generalised representation of “q0” may be formulated in
accordance with the EGM construct as follows,
q0 = –ΩZPF
(2.35)
Note: the EGM construct mathematically derives the experimentally observed “accelerated
Cosmological expansion phenomenon” hence, “q0” is positive from the EGM perspective (i.e.
presently “dH/dt > 0”: refer to QE4).
However, within the framework of the SMoC, the present observational situation should be
“dH/dt < 0”, but this has been experimentally determined to be incorrect in favour of the EGM
prediction of “dH/dt > 0” (i.e. from the perspective of the SMoC, “q0” is negative – opposite to the
EGM perspective). Hence, it is necessary to differentiate between the EGM and SMoC perspectives
of the deceleration parameter. Thus, let the SMoC deceleration parameter “qSM_1” be written as,
qSM_1 = –q0

(2.36)

Tabulating an EGM and SMoC deceleration parameter comparison (i.e. “q0” and “qSM_1”
respectively) yields,

183

Refer to “Appendix 2.A”.
Produced by utilising a deceleration parameter of zero (i.e. “q0 = 0”), representing the “vanilla”
solution which may be utilised as a baseline reference for many other calculations – as
demonstrated in QE4.

184

142

www.deltagroupengineering.com

q0185
-1.006904 x10-3
3.314007 x10-4
1.671006 x10-3

qSM_1186
1.006904 x10-3
-3.314007 x10-4
-1.671006 x10-3
Table 2.10,

CMBR Temp. (K)
T0 – ∆T0 = 2.724
T0 = 2.725
T0 + ∆T0 = 2.726

6.2.3 “Λ0”
“Λ0” may be easily calculated utilising the SMoC relationship187 [i.e. Eq. (2.34)] such that:
“Ω0 → ΩEGM”, “q0 → (qSM_1 = ΩZPF)” and “ΩZPF = 1 – ΩEGM” according to,
Λ0

Ω EGM

3 .H

2

2

Ω ZPF

Ω EGM 2 .Ω ZPF Ω EGM 2 . 1
2

Ω EGM

2

3.
Ω EGM 1
2

(2.37)

where, “H” denotes a generalised reference to the Hubble constant.
If “H = HU2(Ro,MG) = 67.084304(km/s/Mpc)”, “Λ0” may be written according to,
Λ 0 Ω EGM

Λ0 (km/s/Mpc)2
6.730065 x103
6.757167 x103
6.784296 x103
√Λ0 (km/s/Mpc)
82.036971
82.20199
82.366838

2 3
3 .H U2 R o , M G . .Ω EGM 1
2

Λ0 / c2 (km-2)
7.864602 x10-47
7.896273 x10-47
7.927975 x10-47
Table 2.11,

(2.38)

CMBR Temp. (K)
T0 – ∆T0 = 2.724
T0 = 2.725
T0 + ∆T0 = 2.726

1/HU2 – 1/√
√Λ0 (yr)
1/√
√Λ0 (yr)
11.919176 x109
2.656709 x109
11.895249 x109
2.680636 x109
11.871442 x109
2.704443 x109
Table 2.12,

CMBR Temp. (K)
T0 – ∆T0 = 2.724
T0 = 2.725
T0 + ∆T0 = 2.726

6.2.4 “UΛ, UZPF, Uλ”
The “Big-Bang” was an explosion of space-time such that the Cosmological expansion of
the Universe is expected, by the SMoC, to be slowing down (i.e. “dH/dt < 0”) whilst the EGM
construct predicts188 that “dH/dt > 0”. If we view the “Big-Bang” through a force pairing
Newtonian lens, expansive Cosmological pressure “Uλ” must be counter represented by contractive
Cosmological pressure189 – interpreted by EGM to be approximately equal to the ZPF energy
density threshold “UZPF” derived in QE4.
185

The experimentally observed “accelerated expansion phenomenon” was correctly predicted by
the EGM construct (i.e. “dH/dt > 0”). Hence, the deceleration parameter is positive because (at a
CMBR temperature of “T0”) the Universe is smaller (i.e. hotter) than the CMBR temperature
solution derived utilising the EGM method, for “q0 = 0”.
186
The SMoC predicts that the deceleration parameter should be positive, but it has been
experimentally observed to be negative. Hence, the SMoC “perceives” the deceleration parameter
by the EGM construct to be negative.
187
Where, the deceleration parameter is considered to be negative.
188
(i) confirmed by experimental observation; (ii) no requirement for the existence of “Dark Matter
/ Energy”.
189
i.e. the resistance of the space-time manifold to being “stretched” by Cosmological expansion.
143

www.deltagroupengineering.com

“Λ0” may be utilised to determine the net expansive Cosmological pressure “UΛ” as follows,
2

U Λ Ω EGM

c .
Λ 0 Ω EGM
.
8 π .G

(2.39)

The contractive Cosmological pressure “UZPF” is given by,
3 .c .
Ω ZPF .
H U2 R o , M G
8 .π .G
2

U ZPF Ω ZPF

2

(4.315)

Note: “UZPF” is derived from the critical Cosmological mass density by the EGM method
“ρU2(Ro,MG) = 3⋅HU2(Ro,MG) / (8πG)”: refer to QE4, Eq. (4.304).
The expansive Cosmological pressure “Uλ” is given by,
Uλ(ΩEGM,ΩZPF) = UΛ(ΩEGM) – UZPF(ΩZPF)
UΛ (Pa)
3.787219 x10-10
3.802471 x10-10
3.817737 x10-10

UZPF (Pa)
7.649839 x10-13
-2.51778 x10-13
-12.695284 x10-13

Uλ (Pa)
3.77957 x10-10
3.804989 x10-10
3.830432 x10-10
Table 2.13,

|Uλ / UZPF|
494.071804
1.511247 x103
301.720886

(2.40)
CMBR Temp. (K)
T0 – ∆T0 = 2.724
T0 = 2.725
T0 + ∆T0 = 2.726

6.2.5 “T0”
At this juncture, it is important to review the results presented in the preceding table. One
should note that the results corresponding to “T0 – ∆T0” demonstrate positive values of ZPF
pressure. This implies that (@ “T0 – ∆T0”), the effects of the ZPF are expansive, not contractive.
Consequently, if EGM insists upon the ZPF applying a Cosmological contractive influence, we may
interpret this contradiction as evidence of “Dark Matter / Energy”. Thus, two distinct physical
possibilities exist dependent upon the precise measurement of the CMBR temperature as follows,
i. If a precise measurement of the CMBR temperature190 demonstrates that “T0 ≥ TU2”, then
“Dark Matter / Energy” does not exist as described by the SMoC because the EGM
construct naturally derives the experimentally confirmed “accelerated expansion
phenomenon” (i.e. “dH/dt > 0”). However, the SMoC requires the existence of “Dark
Matter / Energy” to account for accelerated Cosmological expansion191.
ii. If a precise measurement of the CMBR temperature demonstrates that “T0 < TU2”, then
“Dark Matter / Energy” does exist, but in substantially less quantity than required by the
SMoC. In-fact, for a worse case scenario192 of “T0 – ∆T0”, the influence of “Dark Matter /
Energy” upon the CMBR temperature by the EGM method is “< 1(%)”193.
Thus, insisting upon the ZPF possessing negative energy density facilitates the estimation of
an improved “T0” tolerance as follows,
TU2 < T0 ≤ (T0 + ∆T0)
(2.41)
Therefore,
iii. We may advance the CMBR temperature prediction by approximately one-order-ofmagnitude to be: “2.7254 ± 0.0006(K)”.
iv. “1 – {[TU2 – (T0 – ∆T0)] / [2⋅∆T0]}” demonstrates that the probability of the ZPF acting as
a Cosmological contractive force is “> 62(%)”.
190

i.e. beyond the present resolution of “T0 ± ∆T0”.
This is a major failing of the SMoC.
192
In relation to “TU2”.
193
As demonstrated in QE4.
191

144

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.2.6 “ΛZPF → qSM_2”
Many contemporary Cosmologists believe that ZPF energy is a positive quantity pseudonym
for “Λ0”, considering it to be responsible for the experimentally observed “accelerated expansion
phenomenon”. Utilising this notion (i.e. from this perspective), we may determine the value of
deceleration parameter “qSM_2” in SMoC terms as follows,
Λ0 → Λ ZPF Ω ZPF

8 .π .G .
U ZPF Ω ZPF
2
c

(2.42)

Substituting into Eq. (2.34) yields,
ΛZPF (km/s/Mpc)2
-13.594118
4.474212
22.560109
√ΛZPF (km/s/Mpc)
3.68702i
2.115233
4.749748

qSM_2
ΛZPF / c2 (km-2)
-49
-1.588578 x10
0.500503
0.522846 x10-49 0.499834
2.636323 x10-49 0.499164
Table 2.14,

CMBR Temp. (K)
Д
Д
Д

1/HU2 – 1/√
√ΛZPF (yr)
(14.575885+265.20416i) x109
-447.696095 x109
-191.290414 x109
Table 2.15,

1/√
√ΛZPF (yr)
-265.20416i x109
462.27198 x109
205.866299 x109

CMBR Temp. (K)
Д
Д
Д

“Д”: calculation deferred until proceeding section.
Note: “UZPF” is multiplied by a negative operator; as required by the SMoC due to the
“accelerated Cosmological expansion phenomenon” (i.e. “dH/dt > 0”) suggesting that “Λ0 > 0”.
Analysis of the preceding tables demonstrates that the EGM construct, by application of
“UZPF”, may be easily transformed into SMoC terms. However, in doing so, one directly attributes
ZPF energy to being the cause of the experimentally observed “accelerated Cosmological expansion
phenomenon”, rather than being a force pairing consequence of “dH/dt > 0”194 as presented in the
“qSM_1” solution. Hence,
i. “√ΛZPF” becomes complex for solutions where “T0 < TU2” suggesting that, for SMoC
transformations of EGM construct predictions, “qSM_2 ≤ ½”.
ii. It is known by physical measurement (i.e. from measurements by the WMAP satellite)
that the Universe is flat; hence, “qSM_2 ≤ ½” and the preceding tables of results are
supported by Kellermann et. al.195
6.2.7 “qSM_2 ≈ ±½”
6.2.7.1 Construct
Utilising the EGM construct, it is possible to qualitatively analyse the applicability of a
range of deceleration parameters within the SMoC by applying the relationship196,
q

1 . d
H
2
H dt

2

H

(W.3)

194

Which the EGM construct naturally derives.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6408/abs/361134a0.html
196
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_parameter; see also: QE4.
195

145

www.deltagroupengineering.com

However, we shall commence the analysis by validating Eq. (W.3) against expected results
derived in QE4. The solution algorithm articulated in “Appendix 2.A” to facilitate the validation
process is a generalisation of the rigorously tested numerical approximation technique (i.e. a
secondary derivation of “HU2”) also presented in QE4. Hence, assuming “q → qSM_1 → ΩZPF” yields
“H(ΩZPF)” as follows,
Ω ZPF

d
H
dt
2

1 . d
H
2
H dt

2

H

(2.43)

1 Ω ZPF

H

d
H
dt
2

(2.44)

Ω ZPF

1

H
2

H

(2.45)
1
Ω ZPF

. d H
1 dt

(2.46)

Hence, let:
H

1
Ω ZPF

1

. d H
dt

(2.47)

6.2.7.2 Sample calculations
Evaluating the preceding equation in accordance with the solution algorithm articulated in
“Appendix 2.A” yields the following table of results,
Note: the proceeding table is formulated utilising the derivation of “TU2” in QE4 (i.e. for “q0 = 0”)
as a point of reference and transforming the SMoC range of “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” relative to the “TU2”
solution.

√dHdt (km/s/Mpc)
1/√
√dHdt (yr)
67.050522
14.583229 x109
67.095419
14.57347 x109
67.14033
14.563722 x109
√dHdt (km/s/Mpc)
1/√
√dHdt (yr)
47.411877
20.623801 x109
47.443626
20.609999 x109
47.475383
20.596213 x109
√dHdt (km/s/Mpc)
1/√
√dHdt (yr)
82.174949
11.899163 x109
82.15662
11.901818 x109
82.138273
11.904476 x109

q → qSM_1 → ΩZPF
qSM_1
√dHdt/HU2 – 1 (%)
-0.050358
1.006904 x10-3
0.016569
-3.314007 x10-4
0.083515
-1.671006 x10-3
q → qSM_2 ≈ +½
qSM_2
√dHdt/HU2 – 1 (%)
-29.324934
0.500503
-29.277606
0.499834
-29.230268
0.499164
q → qSM_2 ≈ -½
qSM_2
√dHdt/HU2 – 1 (%)
22.495045
-0.500503
22.467722
-0.499834
22.440373
-0.499164
Table 2.16,

146

CMBR Temp. (K)
T0 – ∆T0 = 2.724
T0 = 2.725
T0 + ∆T0 = 2.726
CMBR Temp. (K)
2.252547
2.253374
2.254201
CMBR Temp. (K)
3.045402
3.045029
3.044656

www.deltagroupengineering.com

where,
i. “q → qSM_1 → ΩZPF” denotes the reference calculation.
ii. “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” denotes the SMoC deceleration range under consideration for comparison to
the reference calculation.
iii. “dHdt” is a convenient notational representation of “dH/dt” for application within the
“MathCad 8 Professional” computational environment.
iv. “√dHdt ≈ HU2”: the Hubble constant by the EGM method.
v. “1/√dHdt”: the Hubble age by the EGM method.
vi. “√dHdt/HU2 – 1”: the error between two EGM methods of Hubble constant determination.
6.2.7.3 Analysis
i. The values of “√dHdt/HU2 – 1” associated with “q → qSM_1 → ΩZPF” (i.e. the reference
calculation) demonstrate that the SMoC interpretation of the deceleration parameter, as
derived by the EGM method, is consistent with the physical determination of the CMBR
temperature. Hence, the approach utilised to produce the tabulated results is valid.
ii. The values of “√dHdt/HU2 – 1” associated with “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” demonstrate that the
solutions are approximately symmetrical.
iii. The boundary conditions “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” exhibit over / under estimation of the Hubble age.
iv. The values of CMBR temperature associated with “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” span a thermal bandwidth
of “≈ 0.8(K)” and possess an average value of “≈ 2.649202(K)”197.
v. As a generalisation, the tabulated results imply that the SMoC values of “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” are
subjectively reasonable198 for Cosmological application within contemporary frameworks.
However, from the perspective of the highly precise correlation to experimental
observations produced by the EGM construct, these mathematically “convenient limits”
are “rough approximations” and should not be utilised beyond qualitative analysis.
vi. Proposed SMoC values of deceleration parameter should be tested against the solution
algorithm defined in “Appendix 2.A” for validity in theoretical Cosmological constructs.
6.3

EGM vs. SMoC
Key Mathematical Fact
Dark matter / energy required
Max Cosmological Temp ≈ 1031(K)
Big-Bang Temperature = 0(K)
Unification with Particle-Physics
Relationship between “H0” and “T0”
“H0” and “T0” are calculable to high precision
“H0” and “T0” were derived from Particle-Physics
Precise determination of distinct Cosmological evolutionary phases
Sign of the deceleration parameter is in agreement with expectation
Prediction of “accelerated Cosmological expansion” (i.e. “dH/dt > 0”)
Experimentally implicit determination of “H0, q0 , Λ0” from “T0”
Table 2.17,

SMoC
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

EGM
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

197

To within approximately “2.781592(%)” and “2.77276(%)” of the physically measured and
EGM derived CMBR temperature values respectively.
198
i.e. the impact upon the Hubble constant is significant, but less pronounced with respect to the
CMBR temperature.
147

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.4

Conclusion
Four interpretations of deceleration parameter are presented (i.e. “q0”, “qSM_1” and “±qSM_2”),
• “q0 = –ΩZPF”: the EGM interpretation of Cosmological expansion.
• “qSM_1 = –q0”: the SMoC interpretation of “q0 = –ΩZPF”.
• “±qSM_2”: a SMoC interpretation of ZPF energy.
Two interpretations of Cosmological constant “Λ0” are presented,
• EGM decomposes “Λ0” into expansive and contractive components.
• ZPF energy as a positive quantity pseudonym for “Λ0”.
Several key determinations of “qSM_2”, with respect to the SMoC, are presented,
• SMoC values of “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” are subjectively reasonable for Cosmological application
within contemporary frameworks.
• “qSM_2 ≈ +½” → an under-estimation of “H0” and “T0”.
• “qSM_2 ≈ –½” → an over-estimation of “H0” and “T0”.
• The values of “T0” associated with “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” span a thermal bandwidth of “≈
0.8(K)” and possess an average value of “≈ 2.649202(K)”.
• From the perspective of the EGM construct, “qSM_2 ≈ ±½” are “rough approximations”
and should not be utilised beyond qualitative analysis (i.e. the EGM construct is
substantially more precise than the SMoC).
• Proposed SMoC values of deceleration parameter should be tested against the solution
algorithm defined in “Appendix 2.A” for validity in theoretical Cosmological constructs.

From the perspective of the SMoC, Cosmological deceleration was expected: however,
Cosmological acceleration has been experimentally confirmed, in agreement with the EGM derived
prediction. Subsequently, an under-estimation of “H0” and “T0” implies that the Universe is larger
(i.e. cooler) than expected. In which case, the SMoC perceives “q0” to be negative. In terms of the
preceding terminology, this may be represented as “q0 → –qSM_2” (alt. “qSM_2 = –q0”).
Moreover, the SMoC interpretation of the sign “±” associated with ZPF energy is opposite
to the EGM construct. That is, the SMoC interprets ZPF energy as a positive quantity; EGM
interprets it as a negative quantity. Consequently, one is required to exercise caution when
interpreting the appropriate sign of “q0”, due to observationally defiant physical formulations within
the SMoC.
The common feature across the various interpretations of “q0” and “Λ0” is ZPF energy.
“Dark Matter / Energy” has not been considered because, although the SMoC is completely reliant
upon its existence to explain the experimentally observed “accelerated Cosmological expansion
phenomenon”, it is not required by the EGM construct as “dH/dt > 0” is naturally derived.
Thus, in one manner or another, ZPF energy is required to derive precise and meaningful
values of “q0” and “Λ0”. Moreover, because the value of “H0” is still widely debated and the
associated experimental tolerance is much broader than “T0”, the EGM construct implies that the
observed “accelerated expansion” of the Universe is attributable to the determination of the ZPF
energy density threshold “UZPF” being “< -2.52 x10-13(Pa)”.

148

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7 Definition of Terms
7.1

Numbering conventions

7.2

References of the form “3.*” refer to “Quinta Essentia – Part 3”.
References of the form “4.*” refer to “Quinta Essentia – Part 4”.
Quinta Essentia – Part 3

7.2.1 Alpha Forms “αx”
• An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
7.2.2 Amplitude Spectrum
• A family of wavefunction amplitudes.
• The amplitudes associated with a frequency spectrum.
• See: Frequency Spectrum.
7.2.3 Background Field
• Reference to the background (ambient) gravitational field.
• Reference to the local gravitational field at the surface of the Earth.
7.2.4 Bandwidth Ratio “∆ωR”
• The ratio of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
7.2.5 Beta Forms “βx”
• A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
7.2.6 Buckingham Π Theory (BPT)
• Arrangement of variables determined by DAT's into Π groupings. These groupings
represent sub-systems of dimensional similarity for scale relationships.
• Minimises the number of experiments required to investigate phenomena.
• See: DAT's.
7.2.7 Casimir Force “FPP”
• Attractive (non-gravitational) force between two parallel and neutrally charged mirrored
plates of equal area.
7.2.8 Change in the Number of Modes “∆nS”
• The difference between the ZPF beat cut-off mode and the Mode Number at the Critical
Boundary as a function of the Critical Ratio.
• See: Mode Number “nβ”.
• See: Critical Ratio “KR”.
7.2.9 Compton Frequency “ωCx”
• The generalised definition of Compton frequency applied globally herein is:
ωCx = mxc2 / h-bar = 2πm
2π xc2/ h = 2πc
2π 2/ λCx.
• This is the only equation in which the “h-bar” form of Planck's constant is used.

149

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.10 Cosmological Constant
• A constant introduced into the equations of GR to facilitate a steady state Cosmological
solution.
• See: General Relativity.
7.2.11 Critical Boundary “ωβ”
• Represents the lower boundary (commencing at the ZPF beat cut-off frequency) of the
ZPF spectrum yielding a specific proportional similarity value.
• See: Zero-Point-Field Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”.
• See: Critical Ratio “KR”.
7.2.12 Critical Factor “KC”
• A proportional measure of the applied EM field intensity (or magnitude of Poynting
Vectors) within an experimental test volume.
• The ratio of two experimentally determined relationship functions.
7.2.13 Critical Field Strengths “EC and BC”
• RMS strength values of applied Electric and Magnetic fields for complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field.
• See: Background Field.
7.2.14 Critical Frequency “ωC”
• The minimum frequency for the application of Maxwell's Equations within an
experimental context.
7.2.15 Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H”
• A representation of the Critical Ratio at ideal dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity utilising a unit amplitude spectrum.
7.2.16 Critical Mode “NC”
• The ratio of the critical frequency to the fundamental harmonic frequency of the PV.
• See: Critical Frequency “ωC”.
• See: Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”
7.2.17 Critical Phase Variance “φC”
• The difference in phase between applied Electric and Magnetic fields for complete
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field.
• See: Background Field.
7.2.18 Critical Ratio “KR”
• A proportional indication of anticipated experimental configurations by any suitable
measure. Typically, this is the magnitude of the ratio of the applied EM experimental
fields to the ambient background gravitational field.
7.2.19 Curl
• The limiting value of circulation per unit area.
7.2.20 DC-Offsets
• A proportional value of applied RMS Electric and / or Magnetic fields acting to offset
the applied function/s.
150

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.21 Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's)
• Formal experimentally based research methods facilitating the derivation, from first
principles, of any number or combination of parameters considered important by an
experimentalist.
• See: BPT.
7.2.22 Divergence
• The rate at which “density” exits a given region of space.
7.2.23 Dominant Bandwidth
• The bandwidth of the EGM spectrum which dominates gravitational effects.
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
7.2.24 Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)
• A method of calculation (not a theory) based upon energy density.
• Being a calculation method, it does not favour or bias any particular theory in the
Standard Model of Particle-Physics.
• Developed as a tool for Engineers to modify gravity.
• The modification of vacuum polarisability based upon the superposition of EM fields.
7.2.25 Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum
• A simple but extreme extension of the EM spectrum (including gravitational effects)
based upon a Fourier distribution.
7.2.26 Energy Density (General)
• Energy per unit volume.
7.2.27 Engineered Metric
• A metric tensor line element utilising the Engineered Refractive Index.
7.2.28 Engineered Refractive Index “KEGM”
• An EM based engineered representation of the Refractive Index.
7.2.29 Engineered Relationship Function “∆K0(ω,X)”
• A change in the Experimental Relationship Function resulting from a modification in the
local value of the magnitude of acceleration by similarity of applied EM fields to the
background gravitational field.
7.2.30 Experimental Prototype (EP)
• Reference to the gravitational acceleration through a practical benchtop volume of
space-time in a laboratory at the surface of the Earth.
7.2.31 Experimental Relationship Function “K0(ω,X)”
• A proportional scaling factor relating an Experimental Prototype (typically herein, it is
the local gravitational field or ambient physical conditions) to a mathematical model.
7.2.32 Fourier Spectrum
• Two spectra combined into one (an amplitude spectrum and a frequency spectrum)
obeying a Fourier series.
• See: Amplitude Spectrum.
• See: Frequency Spectrum.
151

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.33 Frequency Bandwidth “∆ωPV”
• The bandwidth of the Fourier spectrum describing the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
7.2.34 Frequency Spectrum
• A family of wavefunction frequencies.
• The frequencies associated with an amplitude spectrum.
• See: Amplitude Spectrum.
7.2.35 Fundamental Beat Frequency “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)”
• The change in fundamental harmonic frequency of the PV across an elemental
displacement.
• See: Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
7.2.36 Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”
• The lowest frequency in the PV spectrum utilising Fourier harmonics.
7.2.37 General Modelling Equations (GMEx)
• Proportional solutions to the Poisson and Lagrange equations resulting in acceleration.
7.2.38 General Relativity (GR)
• The representation of space-time as a geometric manifold of events where gravitation
manifests itself as a curvature of space-time and is described by a metric tensor.
7.2.39 General Similarity Equations (GSEx)
• Combines General Modelling Equations with the Critical Ratio by utilisation of the
Engineered Relationship Function.
• See: Critical Ratio “KR”.
7.2.40 Gravitons “γg”
• Conjugate Photon pairs responsible for gravitation. This is an inherent mathematical
conclusion arising from similarity modelling utilising a Fourier distribution in Complex
form and the PV model of gravity considerate of ZPF Theory (due to harmonic
symmetry about the “0th” mode).
7.2.41 Graviton Mass-Energy Threshold “mγg”
• The upper boundary value of the mass-energy of a Graviton as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
7.2.42 Group Velocity
• The velocity with which energy propagates.
7.2.43 Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ”
• The terminating frequency of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).

152

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.44 Harmonic Cut-Off Function “Ω”
• A mathematical function associated with the harmonic cut-off mode and frequency.
• See: Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ”.
• See: Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ”.
7.2.45 Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ”
• The terminating mode of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
7.2.46 Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”
• The mode at which the phase variance between the Electric and Magnetic wavefunctions
describing the PV in a classical Casimir experiment begins to alter dramatically.
• A conjectured resonant mode of the PV in a classical Casimir experiment.
• See: Casimir Force “FPP”.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
7.2.47 Harmonic Inflection Frequency “ωX”
• The frequency associated with the harmonic inflection mode.
• See: Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”.
7.2.48 Harmonic Inflection Wavelength “λX”
• The wavelength associated with the harmonic inflection frequency.
7.2.49 Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx)
• A harmonic representation of General Similarity Equations utilising the Critical
Harmonic Operator.
• A family of equations defined by relating the Experimental Prototype to a mathematical
model (General Similarity Equations).
• See: Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H”.
• See: General Similarity Equations (GSEx).
7.2.50 IFF
• If and only if.
7.2.51 Impedance Function
• A measure of the ratio of the permeability to the permittivity of a vacuum.
• Resistance to energy transfer through a vacuum.
7.2.52 Kinetic Spectrum
• Another term for the ZPF spectrum.
• See: ZPF Spectrum.
7.2.53 Mode Bandwidth
• The modes associated with a frequency bandwidth.
7.2.54 Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) “nβ”
• The ratio of the Critical Boundary frequency to the fundamental frequency of the PV.
• The harmonic mode associated with the Critical Boundary frequency.

153

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.55 Number of Permissible Modes “N∆r”
• The number of modes permitted for the application of Maxwell's Equations within an
experimental context, based upon the harmonic cut-off frequency.
• See: Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ”.
7.2.56 Phenomena of Beats
• The interference between two waves of slightly different frequencies.
7.2.57 Photon Mass-Energy Threshold “mγ”
• The upper boundary value of the mass-energy of a Photon as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
7.2.58 Polarisable Vacuum (PV)
• The polarised state of the Zero-Point-Field due to mass influence.
• Characterised by a Refractive Index.
• Obeys a Fourier distribution.
• A bandwidth of the EGM Spectrum.
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM).
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
7.2.59 Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωΩ”
• The change in harmonic cut-off frequency across an elemental displacement.
• See: Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ”.
• See: Phenomena of Beats.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
7.2.60 Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum
• Another term for the Fourier spectrum applied by EGM to describe the PV harmonically.
• A bandwidth of the EGM Spectrum.
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM).
• See. Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
7.2.61 Potential Spectrum
• Another term for the PV spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum.
7.2.62 Poynting Vector
• Describes the direction and magnitude of EM energy flow.
• The cross product of the Electric and Magnetic field.
7.2.63 Precipitations
• Results driven by the application of limits.
7.2.64 Primary Precipitant
• The frequency domain precipitation.
• See: Precipitations.

154

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.65 Radii Calculations by Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)
• Radii calculations by EGM represent the radial position of energetic equilibrium
between the energy density of a homogeneous spherical mass with the ZPF.
• The radii predictions calculated by EGM coincide with the RMS charge radii of all
charged fundamental particles.
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM).
• See: Zero-Point-Field (ZPF).
7.2.66 Range Factor “Stα”
• The product of the change in energy density and the Impedance Function.
• An “at-a-glance” tool indicating the boundaries of the applied energy requirements for
complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background field.
• See: Energy Density.
• See: Background Field.
• See: Impedance Function.
7.2.67 Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)
• See: 2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations.
7.2.68 Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx R)
• A simplification of the Harmonic Similarity Equations by substitution of RMS
expressions for the time varying representations of applied Electric and Magnetic field
harmonics.
• A simplification of the Harmonic Similarity Equations facilitating the investigation of
the effects of phase variance [on a modal (per mode) basis].
7.2.69 Refractive Index “KPV”
• Characterisation value of the PV.
7.2.70 Representation Error “RError”
• Error associated with the mathematical representation of a physical system.
7.2.71 RMS Charge Radii (General)
• The RMS charge radius refers to the RMS value of the charge distribution curve.
7.2.72 RMS Charge Radius of the Neutron “rν”
• The RMS charge radius of a Neutron “rν” is so termed by analogy to the Neutron Mean
Square charge radius “KX” which is typically represented as a squared length quantity
“fm2”. Therefore, the dimensional square root of “KX” represents “rν” by analogy.
• “rν” represents the cross-over radius (the node) on the Neutron charge distribution curve.
7.2.73 Similarity Bandwidth “∆ωS”
• The difference between the ZPF beat cut-off frequency and the critical boundary
frequency.
• A measure of similarity between the background gravitational field spectrum and the
applied field frequencies (commencing at the ZPF beat cut-off frequency).
• See: Background Field.
• See: Critical Boundary “ωβ”.
• See: Zero-Point-Field Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”.

155

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.74 Spectral Energy Density “ρ0(ω)”
• Energy density per frequency mode.
7.2.75 Spectral Similarity Equations (SSEx)
• A representation of the complete spectrum of the PV utilising the 2nd Reduction of the
Harmonic Similarity Equations by application of similarity principles.
7.2.76 Subordinate Bandwidth
• The EM spectrum.
• See: Dominant Bandwidth.
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
7.2.77 Unit Amplitude Spectrum
• A harmonic representation of unity (the number one) utilising the amplitude spectrum of
a Fourier distribution.
7.2.78 Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE)
• The lowest possible energy of the space-time manifold described in quantum terms.
7.2.79 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF)
• The field associated with ZPE.
7.2.80 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Spectrum
• The spectrum of amplitudes and frequencies associated with the ZPF.
7.2.81 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωZPF”
• The difference between the ZPF beat cut-off frequency and the fundamental beat
frequency.
• See: Fundamental Beat Frequency “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)”.
• See: Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”.
7.2.82 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”
• The terminating frequency of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
7.2.83 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Mode “nΩ ZPF”
• The terminating mode of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
7.2.84 1st Sense Check “Stβ”
• A common sense test relating the ZPF beat bandwidth to the Compton frequency of an
Electron.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
• See: Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωZPF”.
7.2.85 2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)
• A time averaged simplification of the Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations.
7.2.86 2nd Sense Check “Stγ”
• A common sense test relating the PV beat bandwidth to the Compton frequency of an
Electron.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωΩ”.
156

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.87 3rd Sense Check “Stδ”
• A common sense test relating the harmonic cut-off mode across an elemental
displacement.
• See: Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ”.
7.2.88 4th Sense Check “Stε”
• A common sense test relating the representation error across an elemental displacement.
• See: Representation Error “RError”.
7.2.89 5th Sense Check “Stη”
• A common sense test relating the harmonic cut-off frequency of a Proton to the
Compton frequency of a Proton.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
7.2.90 6th Sense Check “Stθ”
• A common sense test relating the harmonic cut-off frequency of a Neutron to the
Compton frequency of a Neutron.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
7.2.91 Physical Constants
Symbol
α
c
G
ε0
µ0
h
h-bar
λCe
λCP
λCN
λCµ
λCτ
me
mp
mn


re
rp
λh
mh
th
ωh
eV

Description
Fine Structure Constant
Velocity of light in a vacuum
Universal Gravitation Constant
Permittivity of a vacuum
Permeability of a vacuum
Planck's Constant
Planck's Constant (2π form)
Electron Compton Wavelength
Proton Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Wavelength
Muon Compton Wavelength
Tau Compton Wavelength
Electron rest mass
Proton rest mass
Neutron rest mass
Muon rest mass
Tau rest mass
Classical Electron radius
Classical Proton RMS charge radius
Planck Length
Planck Mass
Planck Time
Planck Frequency
Electron Volt

157

NIST value utilised by EGM
7.297352568 x10-3
299792458
6.6742 x10-11
8.854187817 x10-12
4π x10-7
6.6260693 x10-34
1.05457168 x10-34

Units
None
m/s
m3kg-1s-2
F/m
N/A2
Js

= h / (me,p,n,µ,τ c)

m

9.1093826 x10-31
1.67262171 x10-27
1.67492728 x10-27
1.88353140 x10-28
3.16777 x10-27
2.817940325 x10-15
0.8750 x10-15
= √(Gh/c3)
= √(hc/G)
= √(Gh/c5)
= 1/th
1.60217653 x10-19

kg

m

kg
s
Hz
J

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.92 Mathematical Constants and Symbols
• Euler-Mascheroni Constant (Euler's Constant) [33] “γ” = 0.5772156649015328
• “∩” Refers to an intersection.
• “∪” Refers to a union.
• “→” Or “↓” refers to a process: “leads to”.
7.2.93 Solar System Statistics
Symbol
MM
ME
MJ
MS
RM
RE
RJ
RS

Description
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Earth
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Sun
Mean Radius of the Moon
Mean Radius of the Earth
Mean Radius of Jupiter
Mean Radius of the Sun

Value utilised by EGM Units
kg
7.35 x1022
5.977 x1024
1898.8 x1024
1.989 x1030
m
1.738 x106
6.37718 x106
7.1492 x107
6.96 x108

NOTES

158

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.3

Quinta Essentia – Part 4

7.3.1 “Big-Bang”
• The moment of Cosmological creation.
• The explosion of space-time at the moment of Cosmological creation.
7.3.2 Black-Hole “BH”
• A massive gravitational body such that light cannot escape.
• See: Super-Massive-Black-Hole “SMBH”.
7.3.3 Broadband Propagation
• The propagation of the EGM wavefunctions in the PV spectrum, at a group velocity of zero.
7.3.4 Buoyancy Point
• The point of gravitational acceleration balance (neutrality) between the Earth and the Moon.
7.3.5 CMBR Temperature “T0”
• Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature.
• See: EGM-CMBR Temperature “TU”.
7.3.6 EGM-CMBR Temperature “TU”
• Derivation of the CMBR temperature by the EGM method.
• See: CMBR Temperature “T0”.
7.3.7 EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”
• The flux intensity of gravitational energy expressed in Jansky's.
• Formulated by considering celestial objects as point radiation sources of a high-frequency
EGM wavefunction.
7.3.8 EGM Hubble constant “HU”
• Derivation of the Hubble constant by the EGM method.
• See: Hubble Constant “H0”.
7.3.9


Event Horizon “RBH”
Refers to “RBH” of a SBH.
The radial displacement from the centre of a SBH from which light cannot escape.
See: Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”.

7.3.10 Galactic Reference Particle “GRP”
• The total mass / energy of any Galactic formation represented as a particle with dimensions
approaching the Planck scale.
7.3.11 Gravitational Interference
• The formation of interference patterns from either broadband or narrowband EGM
wavefunction propagation between two or more gravitational fields.
7.3.12 Gravitational Propagation
• See: Broadband Propagation.
• See: Narrowband Propagation.

159

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.3.13 Hubble Constant “H0”
• A measure of the rate of Cosmological expansion.
• See: EGM Hubble constant “HU”.
7.3.14 Narrowband Propagation
• An approximation of Broadband characteristics.
• See: Broadband Propagation.
7.3.15


Non-Physical
Situations where “nΩ” is less than unity.
See: “nΩ”, “Quinta Essentia – Part 3”.
See: Physical.

7.3.16


Physical
Situations where “nΩ” is greater than or equal to unity.
See: “nΩ”, “Quinta Essentia – Part 3”.
See: Non-Physical.

7.3.17 Primordial Universe
• The Universe prior to the “Big-Bang”.
• The Universe at the instant prior to the “Big-Bang”.
7.3.18 Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”
• A static Black-Hole.
• The simplest form of Black-Hole.
7.3.19 Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole “SPBH”
• A SBH of maximum permissible energy density existing at the Planck scale such that the
singularity and event horizon radii coincide.
• The value of harmonic cut-off mode “nΩ” at the periphery is unity.
• The minimum physical radius is “λxλh”.
• The minimum physical mass is “mxmh”.
• See: Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”.
• See: “nΩ”, “Quinta Essentia – Part 3”.
7.3.20 Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle
• Generalised reference to a SPBH.
7.3.21 Singularity
• The maximum permissible energy density at the centre of a SBH, represented as a particle.
• The particle representation (or mathematical point) at the centre of a SBH for which
physical laws are unknown to apply.
• See: Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”.
7.3.22 Singularity Radius “rS”
• The radius of the singularity at the centre of a SBH.
• See: Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”.
7.3.23 Solar Mass
• The mass of the Sun.
160

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.3.24 Super-Massive-Black-Hole “SMBH”
• A BH of greater than “109” solar masses.
• See: Black-Hole “BH”.
7.3.25 Total Mass-Energy
• Refers to “visible + dark”.
7.3.26 Astronomical / Cosmological statistics
Symbol
DE2M
H0
MG
MG/3
MNS
RNS
Ro
T0

Description
Mean Earth-Moon distance
Hubble constant (present value)
Total Galactic mass
Visible Galactic mass
Mass of Neutron Star
Mean Radius of a Neutron Star
Mean distance to Galactic centre
CMBR temperature (present value)

Value utilised by EGM
3.844 x108
71
6 x1011MS
2 x1011MS
≥ MS
20
8
2.725

Units
m
km/s/Mpc
kg

km
kpc
K

NOTES

161

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

162

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8 Glossary of Terms
8.1

Quinta Essentia – Part 3

8.1.1 Acronyms
BNL
BPT
CCFR
CERN
CHARM-II
D0C
DAT
DELPHI
DONUT
E734
EGM
EM
EP
ERF
FNAL
FS
GME1
GME2
GMEx
GPE
GR
GSE1
GSE2
GSE3
GSE4
GSE5
GSEx
HERA
HSE1
HSE2
HSE3
HSE4
HSE5
HSEx
IFF
IHEP
INFN
LANL
LEP
LHS
MCYT

Brookhaven National Laboratory
Buckingham Π Theory
Chicago Columbia Fermi-Lab Rochester
European Organisation for Nuclear Research
Experiment: study of Neutrino-Electron scattering at CERN
D-Zero Collaboration: an international research effort of leading Scientists utilising
facilities at FNAL in Illinois, USA
Dimensional Analysis Techniques
Detector with Lepton, Photon and Hadron Identification
Experiment: a search for direct evidence of the Tau Neutrino at Fermi-Lab
Experiment: a measurement of the elastic scattering of Neutrino's from Electrons and
Protons (at BNL)
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics: a mathematical method based upon the modification of the
vacuum polarisability by the superposition of EM fields
ElectroMagnetic
Experimental Prototype
Experimental Relationship Function
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FERMI-LAB)
Fourier series
General Modelling Equation One
General Modelling Equation Two
Generalised reference to GME1 and GME2
Gravitational Potential Energy
General Relativity
General Similarity Equation One
General Similarity Equation Two
General Similarity Equation Three
General Similarity Equation Four
General Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to GSE1, GSE2, GSE3, GSE4 or GSE5
Hadron Electron Ring Accelerator in Hamburg, Germany
Harmonic Similarity Equation One
Harmonic Similarity Equation Two
Harmonic Similarity Equation Three
Harmonic Similarity Equation Four
Harmonic Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to HSE1, HSE2, HSE3, HSE4 or HSE5
If and only if
Institute of High Energy Physics
National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy)
Los Alamos National Laboratories
Large Electron-Positron storage ring
Left hand side
Ministry of Science and Technology (Spain)
163

www.deltagroupengineering.com

MEXT
MS
NIST
NuTeV
PDG
PV
RFBR
RHS
RMS
SK
SLAC
SNO
SSE1
SSE2
SSE3
SSE4
SSE5
SSEx
TRISTAN
US NSF
USDoE
ZC
ZPF

Ministry of Science (Japan)
Mean Square
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Neutrino's at the Tevatron
Particle Data Group: an international research effort of leading Scientists
Polarisable Vacuum
Russian Foundation for Basic Research
Right hand side
Root Mean Square
Super-Kamiokande Collaboration
Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Spectral Similarity Equation One
Spectral Similarity Equation Two
Spectral Similarity Equation Three
Spectral Similarity Equation Four
Spectral Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to SSE1, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4 or SSE5
Particle collider at the Japanese High Energy Physics Laboratory (KEK)
United States National Science Foundation
United States Department of Energy
ZEUS Collaboration: an international research effort of leading Scientists utilising
facilities at HERA
Zero-Point-Field
NOTES

164

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.1.2 Symbols in alphabetical order
Symbol
A
a
a1
a2
APP
ax(t)
a∞

Description
1st Harmonic term
Magnitude of acceleration vector
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation One
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation Two
Parallel plate area of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Arbitrary acceleration in the time domain
Mean magnitude of acceleration over the fundamental period in a FS
representation in EGM
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector
B
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Amplitude of applied Magnetic field: Ch. 3.6
B0
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
BA
Critical Magnetic field strength
BC
Magnitude
of PV Magnetic field vector
BPV
Bottom Quark: elementary particle in the SM
bq
Root Mean Square of BA
Brms
Velocity of light in a vacuum
c
Velocity of light in a vacuum (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Velocity of light (locally) in the PV model of gravity
c0
Amplitude of fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
CPV(1,r,M)
CPV(nPV,r,M) Amplitude spectrum of PV
Charm Quark: elementary particle in the SM
cq
Common difference
D
Experimental configuration factor: a specific value relating all design
criteria; this includes, but not limited to, field harmonics, field orientation,
physical dimensions, wave vector, spectral frequency mode and
instrumentation or measurement accuracy
Offset function
DC
Down Quark: elementary particle in the SM
dq
Energy: Ch. 3.3
E
Magnitude of Electric field vector
Magnitude of Electric field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Electronic energy level
Charge
e, e
Electron: subatomic / elementary particle in the SM
Exponential function: mathematics
Amplitude of applied Electric field: Ch. 3.6
E0
Energy (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of Electric field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
EA
Critical Electric field strength
EC
Magnitude
of PV Electric field vector
EPV
Root Mean Square of EA
Erms
F(k,n,t) Complex FS representation of EGM
165

Units
m/s2
m2
m/s2

T

T
m/s
m/s2

%
J
V/m

J
C

V/m
J
V/m

m/s2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Magnitude of the ambient gravitational acceleration represented in the time
m/s2
domain
Amplitude spectrum / distribution of F(k,n,t)
F0(k)
The Casimir Force by classical representation
N
FPP
The Casimir Force by EGM
FPV
Gluon: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
g
Magnitude of gravitational acceleration vector
m/s2
Universal Gravitation Constant
m3kg-1s-2
G
Tensor element
g00
Tensor element
g11
Tensor element
g22
Tensor element
g33
Height: Ch. 3.4
m
h
Higgs Boson: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
H
Hydrogen
Magnetic field strength
Oe
Planck’s Constant (plain h form)
Js
h
h-bar
Planck’s Constant (2π form)
HSE4A R Time average form of HSE4 R
HSE5A R Time average form of HSE5 R
Generalised reference to the reduced form of HSEx
HSEx R
Complex number
i
Initial condition
Macroscopic intensity of Photons within a test volume
W/m2
In,P
Vector current density
A/m2
J
Wave vector
1/m
k
K0(r,X) ERF by displacement domain precipitation
Generalised ERF
K0(X)
K0(ω
ω,r,E,B,X) ERF by wavefunction precipitation
K0(ω
ω,X) ERF by frequency domain precipitation
K0(ω
ωPV,r,EPV,BPV,X) ERF equivalent to K0(ω,r,E,B,X)
ERF formed by re-interpretation of the primary precipitant
(V/m)2
K1
ERF formed by re-interpretation of the primary precipitant
T-2
K2
Harmonic wave vector of applied field
1/m
kA
Critical
Factor
KC
PaΩ
Engineered Refractive Index
KEGM
Harmonic form of KEGM
KEGM H
Experimentally implicit Planck Mass scaling factor
Km
The intensity of the background PV field at specific frequency modes
W/m2
Kn,P
A refinement of a constant in FPP
KP
Harmonic wave vector of PV
1/m
kPV
Refractive Index of PV
KPV
Harmonic form of KPV
KPV H
Critical Ratio
KR
Critical harmonic operator (based upon the unit amplitude spectrum)
KR H
Neutron MS charge radius by EGM
m2
KS
Neutron MS charge radius (determined experimentally) in the SM
KX
Experimentally implicit Planck Length scaling factor

Experimentally implicit Planck Frequency scaling factor

Length
m
L
f(t)

166

www.deltagroupengineering.com

L0
L2
L3
L5
M
m0
M0
mAMC
mbq
mcq
mdq
me
ME
men
mgg
mH
mh
MJ
mL(2)
mL(3)
mL(5)
MM
mn
mp
mQB(5)
mQB(6)
MS
msq
mtq
muq
mW
mx
mZ


mγg
mγγ

mµn

mτn
n
n, N
nA
nB
NC
nE
nPV
nq
NT

Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Mass
Mass (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Zero mass (energy) condition of free space
Atomic Mass Constant
Bottom Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Charm Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Down Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Electron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Mass of the Earth
Electron Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) by EGM
Higgs Boson rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Planck Mass
Mass of Jupiter
Rest mass (energy) of the L2 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L3 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L5 particle by EGM
Mass of the Moon
Neutron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Proton rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Rest mass (energy) of the QB5 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the QB6 particle by EGM
Mass of the Sun
Strange Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Top Quark rest mass (energy) according (energy) to PDG
Up Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
W Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Imaginary particle mass
Z Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Electron rest mass (energy) in high energy scattering experiments
Photon rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Photon rest mass (energy) by EGM
Muon rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Muon Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Tau rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Tau Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Neutron: subatomic particle in the SM
Field harmonic (harmonic frequency mode)
Harmonic frequency modes of applied field
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to BA
Critical mode
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
Quantum number
Number of terms
167

m

kg or eV

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NTR
NX
N∆r
nΩ
nΩ ZPF

P
p
Q, Qe
QB5
QB6
r

r0
rBohr
rBoson
rbq
rc
rcq
rdq
re
RE
ren
RError
rgg
rH
RJ
rL
RM
rp
rQB
RS
rsq
rtq
ru
ruq
rW
rx
rxq
rZ

rγγ

rµn

The ratio of the number of terms
Harmonic inflection mode
Permissible mode bandwidth of applied experimental fields
Harmonic cut-off mode of PV
ZPF beat cut-off mode
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) of ωβ
Polarisation vector
Proton: subatomic particle in the SM
Magnitude of Electric charge
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Arbitrary radius with homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Generalised notation for length (e.g. r → λ/2π): Ch. 3.1
Generalised notation for length (locally) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Magnitude of position vector from centre of spherical object with
homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Reciprocal of the wave number: Ch. 3.1
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Classical Bohr radius
Generalised RMS charge radius of a Boson by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Bottom Quark by EGM
Transformed value of generalised length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
RMS charge radius of the Charm Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Down Quark by EGM
Classical Electron radius in the SM
Mean radius of the Earth
RMS charge radius of the Electron Neutrino by EGM
Representation Error
RMS charge radius of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Higgs Boson utilising ru
Mean radius of Jupiter
Average RMS charge radii of the rε, rµ and rτ particles
Mean radius of the Moon
Classical RMS charge radius of the Proton in the SM
Average RMS charge radius of the QB5 / QB6 particles by EGM utilising ru
Mean radius of the Sun
RMS charge radius of the Strange Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Top Quark by EGM
Heisenberg uncertainty range
RMS charge radius of the Up Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the W Boson utilising ru
Bohr radius by EGM
Generalised RMS charge radius of all Quarks as determined by the ZC
within the SM
RMS charge radius of the Z Boson by utilising ru
RMS charge radius of the Electron by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Photon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon Neutrino by EGM
Neutron RMS charge radius (by analogy to KS)
168

C/m2
C

m

%
m

www.deltagroupengineering.com

RMS charge radius of the ν2 particle by EGM
RMS charge radius of the ν3 particle by EGM
RMS charge radius of the ν5 particle by EGM
Neutron Magnetic radius by EGM
Generalised reference to rν2, rν3 and rν5
RMS charge radius of the Proton by EGM
Proton Electric radius by EGM
Proton Magnetic radius by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau Neutrino by EGM
Rydberg Constant
Poynting Vector
Strange Quark: elementary particle in the SM
nth Harmonic term
Range factor
1st Sense check
3rd Sense check
4th Sense check
2nd Sense check
5th Sense check
6th Sense check
A positive integer value representing the harmonic cut-off frequency ratio
between two proportionally similar mass (energy) systems
Poynting Vector of PV

Time
t
Top Quark: elementary particle in the SM
tq
Initial state GPE per unit mass described by any appropriate method
Ug
Harmonic form of Ug
Ug H
Rest mass-energy density
Um
Up Quark: elementary particle in the SM
uq
Field energy density of PV

Local value of the velocity of light in a vacuum
vc
W Boson: elementary particle in the SM
W
All variables within the experimental environment that influence results and
X
behaviour including parameters that might otherwise be neglected due to
practical calculation limitations, in theoretical analysis
Impedance function
Z
Z Boson: elementary particle in the SM
Change in electronic energy level
∆Ε
Change in the magnitude of the local PV acceleration vector
∆aPV
Change in magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration vector
∆g
∆GME1 Change in GME1
∆GME2 Change in GME2
∆GMEx Generalised reference to changes in GME1 and GME2
Harmonic form of ∆K0
∆K0 H
∆K0(ω
ω,X) Engineered Relationship Function by EGM
Change in K1 by EGM
∆K1
Change in K2 by EGM
∆K2
Change in Critical Factor by EGM
∆ KC
rν2
rν3
rν5
rνM
rνx

rπE
rπM

rτn
R∞
S
sq
StN
Stα
Stβ
Stδ
Stε
Stγ
Stη
Stθ
Stω

169

m

J
W/m2

PaΩ

W/m2
s
(m/s)2
Pa
Pa
m/s


J
m/s2

(V/m)2
T-2
PaΩ

www.deltagroupengineering.com

∆nS
∆r
∆t
∆t0
∆ Ug
∆UPV
∆vΩ
∆vδr
∆ΛPV
∆λΩ
∆λδr
∆ωPV
∆ωR
∆ωS
∆ωZPF
∆ωΩ
∆ωδr
Π
ΣH
ΣHR

α
α1
αx
β
β1
βx
ε0
φ
φC
φgg
φγγ
γ
γg
λ
λΑ
λΒ
λCe
λCN
λCP
λh

Change in the number of ZPF modes
Plate separation of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Practical changes in benchtop displacement values
Change in time (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in time (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) per unit mass induced by
any suitable source
Change in energy density of gravitational field
Change in rest mass-energy density
Terminating group velocity of PV
Group velocity of PV
Change in the local value of the Cosmological Constant by EGM
Change in harmonic cut-off wavelength of PV
Change in harmonic wavelength of PV
Frequency bandwidth of PV
Bandwidth ratio
Similarity bandwidth
ZPF beat bandwidth
Beat bandwidth of PV
Beat frequency of PV
Dimensional grouping derived by application of BPT
The sum of terms
The ratio of the sum of terms
Harmonic cut-off function of PV
An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration: Ch. 3.2
Fine Structure Constant
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to α1 and α2
A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to β1 and β2
Permittivity of a vacuum
Relative phase variance between EA and BA
Critical phase variance
RMS charge diameter of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge diameter of the Photon by EGM
Mathematical Constant: Euler-Mascheroni (Euler’s) Constant
Photon: elementary particle in the SM
Graviton: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Wavelength
1st term of the Balmer Series by EGM
Classical Balmer Series wavelength
Electron Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Wavelength
Proton Compton Wavelength
Planck Length
170

m
s
(m/s)2
Pa
m/s
Hz2
m
Hz
Hz

m/s2
m/s2

F/m
θc
m

m

www.deltagroupengineering.com

λPV
µ, µµ
µ0
ν2
ν3
ν5
νe
νµ
ντ
ρ
ρ0
τ, τω

Wavelength of PV
Muon: elementary particle in the SM
Reduced mass of Hydrogen
Permeability of a vacuum
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L2 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L3 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L5 particle by EGM
Electron Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Muon Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Tau Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Charge density
Spectral energy density
Tau: elementary particle in the SM
Field frequency
Field frequency (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.2
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity
ω0
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to BA
ωB
Critical frequency
ωC
Harmonic
frequency of the ZPF with respect to EA
ωE
Electron Compton Frequency
ωCe
Neutron Compton Frequency
ωCN
Proton Compton Frequency
ωCP
Planck Frequency
ωh
Generalised reference to ωPV(nPV,r,M)
ωPV
Fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
ωPV(1,r,M)
Frequency
spectrum of PV
ωPV(nPV,r,M)
Harmonic inflection frequency
ωX
Harmonic cut-off frequency of PV
ωΩ
ZPF
beat cut-off frequency
ωΩ ZPF
Critical boundary
ωβ
〈 mQuark〉 Average mass (energy) of all Quarks according to PDG
Average mass (energy) of all Quarks by EGM
Average RMS charge radius of all Bosons in the SM utilising ru
〈rBoson〉
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks by EGM
〈rQuark〉
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks and Bosons by EGM utilising ru
〈r〉〉

m
kg or eV
N/A2

C/m3
Pa/Hz
Hz

kg or eV
m

NOTES

171

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2

Quinta Essentia – Part 4

8.2.1 Acronyms

Refer to “Quinta Essentia – Part 3: Acronyms” where appropriate.

BH
CMBR
DAT
ED
EFT
EP
GA
GRP
GUT
HEP
LFT
MW
NASA
QED
QFT
QM
RF
SBH
SED
SM
SMBH
SPBH
ST
ToE
VP
ZP
ZPE

Black-Hole
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Dimensional Analysis Technique
ElectroDynamics
Effective Field Theory
Experimental Prototype
Gravitational Astronomy
Galactic Reference Particle
Grand Unified Theory
High Energy Physics
Lattice Field Theory
Milky-Way
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Quantum Electro Dynamics
Quantum Field Theory
Quantum Mechanics
Radio Frequency
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole
Spectral Energy Density
Standard Model of Particle-Physics or Cosmology
Super-Massive-Black-Hole
Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole
String Theory
Theory of Everything
Virtual Photon
Zero-Point
Zero-Point-Energy
NOTES

172

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.2 Symbols by chapter

Refer to “Quinta Essentia – Part 3: Symbols in alphabetical order” where appropriate.

Symbol
aEGM_ωΩ
ωΩ
CΩ_J
CΩ_J1
nΩ_1
Stg
StG
StJ
SωΩ
Ω1
ωΩ_1
ωΩ_2
ωΩ_3

Chapter 5: Characterisation of the Gravitational Spectrum
Description
Gravitational acceleration utilising ωΩ_2
EGM Flux Intensity
Non-refractive form of CΩ_J
Non-refractive form of nΩ
1st EGM gravitational constant: Stg = 1.828935 x10245
2nd EGM gravitational constant: StG = 8.146982 x10224
3rd EGM gravitational constant: StJ9 = 1.093567 x10-146(kg4m26/s18)
Approximated / simplified Poynting Vector
Non-refractive form of Ω
Non-refractive form of ωΩ
Gravitational acceleration form of ωΩ_1
Transformed representation of ωΩ_1

Units
m/s2
Jy (Jansky)

m-1s-5
m5kg-2s-9
(kg4m26/s18)(1/9)
W/m2
Hz

Chapter 6: Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” Characteristics
Symbol Description
Units
Propagation energy of a Graviton
J
Eg
Ex
Proportional relationship between Eg and Eγ
Propagation energy of a Photon
J

Hubble constant (present value)
Hz
H0
Refractive Index of PV by Depp
KDepp
Planck scale experimental relationship function
Kh
Generalised mass
kg
M1
Generalised mass
M2
Mass of a SBH
MBH
2nd SPBH constant
mx
nBH
Harmonic cut-off mode ratio (nΩ_5 : nΩ_4)
ng
Average number of Gravitons radiated by a SBH per TΩ_4 period
Population of Gravitons within starving matter
ngg
Transformed representation of nΩ_1
nΩ_2
The form nΩ_2 takes as a function of λx
nΩ_3
nΩ_1 at the periphery of a SBH singularity
nΩ_4
nΩ_1 at the event horizon of a SBH
nΩ_5
Average number of Photons radiated by a SBH per TΩ_4 period

Population of Photons within starving matter
nγγ
Hubble size (present value)
m
r0
Generalised radial displacement
r1
Generalised radial displacement
r2
Radius of the event horizon of a SBH
RBH
Range variable for SBH’s
Rbh
Singularity radius
rS
ZPF equilibrium radius
rZPF
Distance from the centre of mass of a celestial object to the Earth

Average emission period per Graviton
s
Tg
173

www.deltagroupengineering.com

TL
TΩ_3
TΩ_4
V
∆KPV
∆r
λVL
λx
λX-RAY
ρm
ρS
ωBH
ωg
ωPV_1
ωX-RAY
ωΩ_4
ωΩ_5
ωΩ_6
ωΩ_7

Minimum gravitational lifetime of matter
1 / ωΩ_3
1 / ωΩ_4
Volume
Change in Refractive Index of PV
Change in displacement within the event horizon of a SBH
Wavelength of visible light
1st SPBH constant
Wavelength of X-Rays
Mass density
Mass density of a SPBH
Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio (ωΩ_5 : ωΩ_4)
Average Graviton emission frequency (1 / Tg)
Fundamental harmonic frequency ratio (ωΩ_6 : ωΩ_7)
Frequency of X-Rays
ωΩ_3 at the event horizon of a SBH
ωΩ_3 at the periphery of a SBH singularity
ωPV(1,r,MBH) at the periphery of a SBH singularity: r = rS(MBH)
ωPV(1,r,MBH) at the event horizon of a SBH: r = RBH(MBH)

s

m3
m

m
kg/m3

Hz
Hz

Chapter 7: Fundamental Cosmology
Symbol
AU
H
HU
HU2

KT
KU
KW
M3
Mf
MG
mg1
mg2
mg3
mg4
mg5
Mi
MU
r3
rf
ri
Ro
RU
rx1
rx2
rx3
rx4

Description
EGM Cosmological age (present value)
Generalised reference to the Hubble constant
EGM Hubble constant
Transformed representation of HU
Primordial Hubble constant
Expansive scaling factor
rf / ri
Wien displacement constant: 2.8977685 x10-3 [35]
Generalised mass or mxmh
Total Cosmological mass (present value)
Total mass of the Milky-Way Galaxy
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Total Cosmological mass (initial value)
Total EGM Cosmological mass
Generalised radial displacement or λxλh
Cosmological size (present value)
Cosmological size (initial value)
Distance from the Sun to the Galactic centre
EGM Cosmological size (present value)
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
174

Units
s
Hz

mK
kg

kg
m

pc (parsec)
m

www.deltagroupengineering.com

rx5
T0
TU
TU2
TW
UZPF
∆ Ro
∆T0

ΩEGM
Ωm
ΩPDG
ΩZPF
ΩΛ
Ωγ
Ων
λy
λΩ_3
ρ
ρc
ρU
ρU2

Computational pre-factor
CMBR temperature (present value)
CMBR temperature by the EGM method
Transformed representation of TU
Thermodynamic scaling factor
ZPF energy density threshold
Experimental tolerance of Ro
Experimental tolerance of T0
Community reference to the net Cosmological density parameter
Net Cosmological density parameter as defined by the EGM method
Visible mass contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Net Cosmological density parameter as defined by the PDG
ZPE contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Dark energy contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Photon contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Neutrino contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Generalised representation of λx
c / ωΩ_3
Community reference to Cosmological mass-density
Critical Cosmological mass-density
EGM Cosmological mass-density
Transformed representation of ρU

K

Pa
pc
K

m
kg/m3

Chapter 8: Advanced Cosmology
Symbol
CΩ_Jωω
dH2dt2
dHdt
dT2dt2
dT3dt3
dTdt

Hβ2

MEGM
ML
REGM
rL
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
t7
tEGM

Description
Equal to CΩ_J
2nd time derivative of H
1st time derivative of H
2nd time derivative of TU4
3rd time derivative of TU4
1st time derivative of TU4
Dimensionless range variable
Computational pre-factor
Dimensionless range variable
Convenient form of MU
EGM Cosmological mass limit
Convenient form of RU
EGM Cosmological size limit
• Temporal ordinate (local maxima) of the CMBR temperature
• The instant of maximum Cosmological temperature
Temporal ordinate (local minima) of the 1st time derivative of the
CMBR temperature
Temporal ordinate (local maxima) of the 2nd time derivative of the
CMBR temperature
• Temporal ordinate (local maxima) of the 1st time derivative of H
• The instant of maximum physical EGM Hubble constant
Temporal ordinate (local minima) of the 2nd time derivative of H
Equal to t1
Convenient form of AU
175

Units
Jy
Hz3
Hz2
K/s2
K/s3
K/s

kg
m
s

www.deltagroupengineering.com

tL
TU3
TU4
η
µ

EGM Cosmological age limit
Transformed representation of TU2
Transformed representation of TU3
Computed index
Indicial constant (µ = 1 / 3)

s
K

Symbol
ag
aPV
DE2M
gav
r4
r5

Chapter 9: Gravitational Cosmology
Description
High frequency harmonic acceleration
Gravitational acceleration harmonic
Mean distance from the Earth to the Moon
Average high-frequency harmonic acceleration
Distance from the centre of mass of the Earth to the buoyancy point
Distance from the centre of mass of the Moon to the buoyancy point

Units
m/s2
m
m/s2
m

Chapter 10: Particle Cosmology
Symbol
mgg2
mγγ2
γγ


Qγ_PDG
Qγγ
Qγγ2
γγ
rgg2
rγγ2
γγ

Description
Graviton mass-energy lower limit
Photon mass-energy lower limit
Photon population at Qγ
Photon RMS charge threshold by EGM
Photon RMS charge threshold by PDG
Photon RMS charge upper limit by EGM
Photon RMS charge lower limit by EGM
Graviton RMS charge radius lower limit
Photon RMS charge radius lower limit

Units
eV

C

m

Appendix 4.A
Symbol
TBH
Th
TSPBH
Φ
κ
σ

Description
BH temperature
Planck temperature
SPBH temperature
Energy flux emitted from a “Black-Body” at temperature “T”
Boltzmann’s constant: 1.3806505 x10-23 [35]
Stefan-Boltzmann constant: 5.670400 x10-8 [35]

Units
K
W/m2
J/K
Wm-2K-4

NOTES

176

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.3 Symbols in alphabetical order

Refer to “Quinta Essentia – Part 3: Symbols in alphabetical order” where appropriate.

Symbol
aEGM_ωΩ
ωΩ
ag
aPV
AU
CΩ_J
CΩ_J1
CΩ_Jωω
DE2M
dH2dt2
dHdt
dT2dt2
dT3dt3
dTdt
Eg
Ex

gav
H
H0
HU
HU2


Hβ2

KDepp
Kh
KT
KU
KW
M1
M2
M3
MBH
MEGM
Mf
MG
mg1
mg2
mg3
mg4
mg5
mgg2
Mi
ML

Description
Gravitational acceleration utilising ωΩ_2
High frequency harmonic acceleration
Gravitational acceleration harmonic
EGM Cosmological age (present value)
EGM Flux Intensity
Non-refractive form of CΩ_J
Equal to CΩ_J
Mean distance from the Earth to the Moon
2nd time derivative of H
1st time derivative of H
2nd time derivative of TU4
3rd time derivative of TU4
1st time derivative of TU4
Propagation energy of a Graviton
Proportional relationship between Eg and Eγ
Propagation energy of a Photon
Average high-frequency harmonic acceleration
Generalised reference to the Hubble constant
Hubble constant (present value)
EGM Hubble constant
Transformed representation of HU
Primordial Hubble constant
Dimensionless range variable
Computational pre-factor
Dimensionless range variable
Refractive Index of PV by Depp
Planck scale experimental relationship function
Expansive scaling factor
rf / ri
Wien displacement constant: 2.8977685 x10-3 [35]
Generalised mass
Generalised mass
Generalised mass or mxmh
Mass of a SBH
Convenient form of MU
Total Cosmological mass (present value)
Total mass of the Milky-Way Galaxy
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Graviton mass-energy lower limit
Total Cosmological mass (initial value)
EGM Cosmological mass limit
177

Units
m/s2

s
Jy (Jansky)

m
Hz3
Hz2
K/s2
K/s3
K/s
J
J
m/s2
Hz

mK
kg

eV
kg
www.deltagroupengineering.com

MU
mx
mγγ2
γγ
nBH
ng
ngg
nΩ_1
nΩ_2
nΩ_3
nΩ_4
nΩ_5


nγγ

Qγ_PDG
Qγγ
Qγγ2
γγ
r0
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
RBH
Rbh
REGM
rf
rgg2
ri
rL
Ro
rS
RU
rx1
rx2
rx3
rx4
rx5
rZPF
rγγ2
γγ

Stg
StG
StJ
SωΩ
T0
t1

Total EGM Cosmological mass
2nd SPBH constant
Photon mass-energy lower limit
Harmonic cut-off mode ratio (nΩ_5 : nΩ_4)
Average number of Gravitons radiated by a SBH per TΩ_4 period
Population of Gravitons within starving matter
Non-refractive form of nΩ
Transformed representation of nΩ_1
The form nΩ_2 takes as a function of λx
nΩ_1 at the periphery of a SBH singularity
nΩ_1 at the event horizon of a SBH
Average number of Photons radiated by a SBH per TΩ_4 period
Photon population at Qγ
Population of Photons within starving matter
Photon RMS charge threshold by EGM
Photon RMS charge threshold by PDG
Photon RMS charge upper limit by EGM
Photon RMS charge lower limit by EGM
Hubble size (present value)
Generalised radial displacement
Generalised radial displacement
Generalised radial displacement or λxλh
Distance from the centre of mass of the Earth to the buoyancy point
Distance from the centre of mass of the Moon to the buoyancy point
Radius of the event horizon of a SBH
Range variable for SBH’s
Convenient form of RU
Cosmological size (present value)
Graviton RMS charge radius lower limit
Cosmological size (initial value)
EGM Cosmological size limit
Distance from the Sun to the Galactic centre
Singularity radius
EGM Cosmological size (present value)
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
Computational pre-factor
ZPF equilibrium radius
Photon RMS charge radius lower limit
Distance from the centre of mass of a celestial object to the Earth
1st EGM gravitational constant: Stg = 1.828935 x10245
2nd EGM gravitational constant: StG = 8.146982 x10224
3rd EGM gravitational constant: StJ9 = 1.093567 x10-146(kg4m26/s18)
Approximated / simplified Poynting Vector
CMBR temperature (present value)
• Temporal ordinate (local maxima) of the CMBR temperature
• The instant of maximum Cosmological temperature
178

kg
eV

C

m

pc (parsec)
m

m

m-1s-5
m5kg-2s-9
(kg4m26/s18)(1/9)
W/m2
K
s

www.deltagroupengineering.com

t2
t3
t4
t5
t7
TBH
tEGM
Tg
Th
TL
tL
TSPBH
TU
TU2
TU3
TU4
TW
TΩ_3
TΩ_4
UZPF
V
∆KPV
∆r
∆ Ro
∆T0
Φ

Ω1
ΩEGM
Ωm
ΩPDG
ΩZPF
ΩΛ
Ωγ
Ων
η
κ
λVL
λx
λX-RAY
λy
λΩ_3
µ
ρ
ρc
ρm

Temporal ordinate (local minima) of the 1st time derivative of the
CMBR temperature
Temporal ordinate (local maxima) of the 2nd time derivative of the
CMBR temperature
• Temporal ordinate (local maxima) of the 1st time derivative of H
• The instant of maximum physical EGM Hubble constant
Temporal ordinate (local minima) of the 2nd time derivative of H
Equal to t1
BH temperature
Convenient form of AU
Average emission period per Graviton
Planck temperature
Minimum gravitational lifetime of matter
EGM Cosmological age limit
SPBH temperature
CMBR temperature by the EGM method
Transformed representation of TU
Transformed representation of TU2
Transformed representation of TU3
Thermodynamic scaling factor
1 / ωΩ_3
1 / ωΩ_4
ZPF energy density threshold
Volume
Change in Refractive Index of PV
Change in displacement within the event horizon of a SBH
Experimental tolerance of Ro
Experimental tolerance of T0
Energy flux emitted from a “Black-Body” at temperature “T”
Community reference to the net Cosmological density parameter
Non-refractive form of Ω
Net Cosmological density parameter as defined by the EGM method
Visible mass contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Net Cosmological density parameter as defined by the PDG
ZPE contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Dark energy contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Photon contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Neutrino contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Computed index
Boltzmann’s constant: 1.3806505 x10-23 [35]
Wavelength of visible light
1st SPBH constant
Wavelength of X-Rays
Generalised representation of λx
c / ωΩ_3
Indicial constant (µ = 1 / 3)
Community reference to Cosmological mass-density
Critical Cosmological mass-density
Mass density
179

s

K
s
K
s
K

s
Pa
m3
m
pc
K
W/m2

J/K
m
m
m
kg/m3

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ρS
ρU
ρU2
σ
ωBH
ωg
ωPV_1
ωX-RAY
ωΩ_1
ωΩ_2
ωΩ_3
ωΩ_4
ωΩ_5
ωΩ_6
ωΩ_7

Mass density of a SPBH
EGM Cosmological mass-density
Transformed representation of ρU
Stefan-Boltzmann constant: 5.670400 x10-8 [35]
Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio (ωΩ_5 : ωΩ_4)
Average Graviton emission frequency (1 / Tg)
Fundamental harmonic frequency ratio (ωΩ_6 : ωΩ_7)
Frequency of X-Rays
Non-refractive form of ωΩ
Gravitational acceleration form of ωΩ_1
Transformed representation of ωΩ_1
ωΩ_3 at the event horizon of a SBH
ωΩ_3 at the periphery of a SBH singularity
ωPV(1,r,MBH) at the periphery of a SBH singularity: r = rS(MBH)
ωPV(1,r,MBH) at the event horizon of a SBH: r = RBH(MBH)

kg/m3

Wm-2K-4
Hz
Hz

NOTES

180

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9 Key Artefact and Equation Summary
The following is an itemised account of the key relationships derived in QE3 and QE4:
9.1

Quinta Essentia – Part 3

9.1.1 Dimensional Analysis
9.1.1.1 “KPV, K0(X)”
2

K PV K 0( X )

3

(3.25)

9.1.1.2 “a(t)”

Acceleration

Re( a( t ) )
Im( a( t ) )
f( t )

t
Time

Real Terms (Non-Zero Sum)
Imaginary Terms (Zero Sum)
Constant Function (eg. "g")

Figure 3.2,
9.1.2 General modelling and the critical factor
9.1.2.1 “KC”
K C K 1, K 2

2

K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X

N

N
2
E 0( k , n , t ) .

n= N

B 0( k , n , t )
n= N

2

(3.44)

9.1.2.2 “GME1”
N
2

a r0

±

β1

β2
2

K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
±

N

2 .r 0 . K PV

n= N

3

N
E 0( k , n , t )

2

2
c0 .

B 0( k , n , t )
n= N

2

E 0( k , n , t )
K 0 ω 0, X
n
=
N
.
±
N
3
.
.
2 r 0 K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N

(Eq. 3.45)

181

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2

c0

9.1.2.3 “GME2”
N

a r0

±

β1

β2

±

2

K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X

N

N

.

2 .r 0 . K PV

3

E 0( k , n , t )

2
c0 .

2

n= N

B 0( k , n , t )
n= N

2

±

K 0 ω 0, X

E 0( k , n , t )

2

. n= N
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N

(Eq. 3.46)
9.1.3 The engineered metric
9.1.3.1 “KR”
KR

∆U g ∆a PV ∆K C( ∆r )
Ug

.

∆U PV( ∆r )

g

ε0
µ0

(3.53)

9.1.3.2 “∆K0(ω,X)”
∆K 0( ω , X )

G.M .
r .g .
KR
KR
2
2
c
r .c

(3.54)

9.1.3.3 “KEGM” (normal matter form)
K EGM K PV. e

2 . ∆K 0( ω , X )

(3.56)

9.1.4 Amplitude and frequency spectra
9.1.4.1 “CPV”
G.M .

C PV n PV, r , M

2

r

2
.
π n PV

(3.64)

9.1.4.2 “ωPV”
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r

ω PV n PV, r , M

(3.67)

9.1.4.3 “nΩ”
n Ω ( r, M )

Ω ( r, M )

4

12

Ω ( r, M )

1

(3.71)

9.1.4.4 “Ω”
3

Ω ( r, M )

108.

U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )

12. 768 81.

U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )

2

(3.72)

9.1.4.5 “ωΩ”
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

182

(3.73)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2

c0

9.1.5 General similarity
9.1.5.1 “ωβ”
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R

4

ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

4
ZPF

K R . ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF

4

∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )

4

(3.93)

9.1.5.2 EGM Wave Propagation

Figure 3.14,
9.1.5.3 EGM Spectrum

Figure 3.15 (illustrational only),
9.1.6 Harmonic and spectral similarity
9.1.6.1 “φC = 0°, 90°”, “EC, BC”

Critical Phase Variance “φC = 0°, 90°”

Critical Field Strengths (“EC and BC”)

“EC” and “BC” are derived utilising the reciprocal harmonic distribution describing the EGM
amplitude spectrum. Solutions to “|SSE4,5| = 1” represent conditions of complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the amplitude of the background EGM spectrum.
183

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.6.2 “SSE4,5”
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms, , r , ∆r , M
2

SSE 4 E rms , B rms, 0 , r , ∆r , M

1

(3.156)

9.1.6.3 DC-Offsets
SSE 4 ( 1

SSE 4 ( 1

DC) .E rms , B rms , 0 , r , ∆r , M

DC) . E rms, ( 1

SSE 5 E rms , ( 1

DC) . B rms, 0 , r , ∆ r , M

SSE 5 ( 1

π
DC) .B rms , , r , ∆r , M
2

DC) . E rms, ( 1

DC) . B rms,

1
2

π

, r, ∆ r, M

2

(3.159)
1
4

(Eq. 3.160)
9.1.6.4 “ωC”
ω C( ∆r )

c
2 .∆r

(3.162)

9.1.7 The Casimir Effect
9.1.7.1 “NX”
N X( r , ∆r , M )

n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

1
ZPF

ln 2 .n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

γ

(3.164)

ZPF

9.1.7.2 “NC”
N C( r , ∆r , M )

ω C( ∆r )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(3.169)

9.1.7.3 “ωX”
ω X( r , ∆r , M ) N X( r , ∆r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(3.170)

9.1.7.4 “FPV”
F PV A PP , r , ∆r , M

A PP .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .

N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )

2

.ln

N X( r , ∆r , M )

4

N C( r , ∆r , M )

(3.179)

9.1.7.5 “∆r, λx, Erms, Brms, 0c, ±π, ±π/2”

The optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the negative energy
conjecture exists at:
∆r ≈ 16.5(mm)
(3.287)
λX(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 18(nm)
(3.289)
Erms ≈ 550(V/m)

(3.290)

Brms ≈ 18(milli-gauss)

(3.291)

The optimal phase variance between the applied Electric and Magnetic fields occurs at “0, ±π or
±π/2”

184

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.8 Physical characteristics
9.1.8.1 Photon / Graviton
9.1.8.1.1 “mγ”
mγ<

512.h .G.m e

.

2

c . π .r e

n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

γ

(3.193)

9.1.8.1.2 “mgg”
mgg = 2mγγ

(3.216)

9.1.8.1.3 “mγγ”
3

m γγ

h .
re

3

π .r e

512.G.m e

.

2 .c .G.m e

2

.

c .π

n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

2

γ

2

(3.220)

9.1.8.1.4 “rγγ”
9.1.8.1.4.1 Primary
5

2

m γγ

r γγ r e .

m e .c

2

(3.225)

9.1.8.1.4.2 Secondary

Approximation of the radius of a free Photon “rγγ”, relating physical properties of the Lepton
family, specifically all Electron-Like particles
r γγ K ω .

G.h . r µ
c

3

(3.274)

9.1.8.1.5 “rgg”
r gg

5

4 .r γγ

(3.227)

9.1.8.2 “α”
9.1.8.2.1 Primary
α

2

.e

3

(3.204)

9.1.8.2.2 Secondary

α

.e

(3.236)

185

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.8.3 “Stω”
2

ω Ω r 1, M 1

M1

ω Ω r 2, M 2

M2

5

9

.

r2

9

St ω

r1

(3.230)

9.1.8.4 Electron, Muon, Tau
9.1.8.4.1 “rε, rµ, rτ”
5

2

1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp

(3.231)

5

rε .

rµ rτ

5

2

1 . mµ
9
4 me

1 . mτ
9
6 me

2

(3.234)

9.1.8.4.2 “ren, rµn, rτn”
5

m en

r ε.

r en r µn r τn

5

2

r µ.

me

5

2

m µn

r τ.

m τn

2

(3.238)

9.1.8.5 Proton, Neutron
9.1.8.5.1 “ωΩ”
ω Ω r ε, m e

ω Ω r π, m p

2 .ω Ω r π , m p

ω Ω r ν ,mn

ω CP

2

ω CN

2

ω Ce

ω Ce

(3.210)

9.1.8.5.2 “rπ, rν”
2

. c .e
r e ω Ce


π

3

5

c .ω Ce

.

3

4 .ω CP

c .ω Ce

5

.

3

4 .ω CN

2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4
32.π ω CP

(3.212)

2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4
32.π ω CN

(3.215)

9.1.8.5.3 “ρch”
r

ρ ch ( r )

KS

2.
3

3.

5 2
π rν . x

. e

2

1.

e

r
x .r ν

2

3

1

x

(3.406)

9.1.8.5.4 “rdr”
r dr

5.
3

186

(3.391)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.8.5.5 “KS”
KS

2
3 . π . r ν ( 1 x) . x3
.
2
8
1 x x

(3.396)

9.1.8.5.6 “b1, rX”
b1

2 . KS
3.r ν

2

2

1

x

(3.394)

2
6 .b 1 .K X . x

rX

2
3 .b 1 . x

1


KS

1

. K .K
S X

(3.418)

9.1.8.5.7 “rνM”
r dr

r ν . ρ ch r νM

ρ ch ( r ) d r

(3.420)

9.1.8.5.8 “rπE”
r dr
r ν . ρ ch r πE

ρ ch ( r ) d r

(3.423)

9.1.8.5.9 “rπM”

r ν . ρ ch r πM

ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr

(3.426)

9.1.8.5.10 “rp”
r P r πE

1.
2

r νM

(3.429)

9.1.8.6 Quark / Boson harmonics
9.1.8.6.1 “Up Quark”
1

.

ω Ω r uq , m uq

ω Ω r dq , m dq

ω Ω r sq , m sq

ω Ω r cq , m cq

ω Ω r bq , m bq

1 2 3 4

ω Ω r W,mW

ω Ω r Z, m Z

ω Ω r H, m H

ω Ω r tq , m tq

7 8 9 10

(3.253)

9.1.8.6.2 Electron
1
ω Ω r ε, m e

.

ω Ω r dq , m dq

ω Ω r sq , m sq

ω Ω r cq , m cq

ω Ω r bq , m bq

7 14 21 28

ω Ω r W,mW

ω Ω r Z, m Z

ω Ω r H, m H

ω Ω r tq , m tq

49 56 63 70

187

(3.254)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.8.7 Hydrogen Spectrum: “λA”

The first term of the Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer series) “λA” [by EGM] utilising the Bohr
radius “rBohr” and the fundamental PV wavelength “λPV”
λA

λ PV 1 , K ω .r Bohr , m p
2 .n Ω K ω .r Bohr , m p

(3.457)

9.1.9 Theoretical propositions
9.1.9.1 The Planck scale: “Kω, Kλ, Km”
3

2
π

(3.270)

1

(3.264)

1
Km

(3.265)

9.1.9.2 Particles
9.1.9.2.1 Leptons: “mL(2), mL(3), mL(5)”
mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV)

(3.280)

mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)

(3.281)

mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)

(3.282)

9.1.9.2.2 Quarks / Bosons: “mQB(5), mQB(6)”
mQB(5) ≈ 10(GeV)

(3.285)

mQB(6) ≈ 22(GeV)

(3.286)

188

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2

Quinta Essentia – Part 4

9.2.1 Gravitation
9.2.1.1 “Stg”
6
3
3 .ω h

St g

13 2
2 .π .c

(4.23)

9.2.1.2 “ωΩ_2”
ω Ω_2( r , M )

9

St g

.g ( r , M ) 2

r

(4.25)

9.2.1.3 “aEGM_ωΩ”
r .
9
ω Ω_2( r , M )

a EGM_ωΩ( r , M )

St g

(4.26)

9.2.1.4 “StG”
3.

St G

2

3 .ω h

9

. c
2

4 .π .h

(4.35)

9.2.1.5 “ωΩ_3”
9

2

M
St G.
5
r

ω Ω_3( r , M )

(4.36)

9.2.1.6 “λΩ_3”
λΩ_3 = c / ωΩ_3
9.2.1.7 “G”
St G

G

St g

(4.37)

9.2.1.8 “ωPV(nPV,r,M)3”
2 .c .n PV

3

ω PV n PV, r , M

3

π .r

.g ( r , M )

2

(4.41)

9.2.1.9 “StJ”
9 .c .
St G
4 .π
4

St J

2
9

(4.51)

9.2.1.10 “CΩ_J1, CΩ_Jω”
C Ω_J1( r , M )

St J
2

r

189

9

. M

5

8

r

(4.52)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.2

4
9 .c . ω Ω_3
4 .π St 0.8 .M 0.6
G

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

(4.427)

9.2.1.11 “nΩ_2”
9

n Ω_2( r , M )

.
3
3 .π m h . r
16 M
λh
2

7

(4.60)

9.2.1.12 “KDepp”
1

K Depp ( r , M )

2 .G.M

1

r .c

2

(4.106)

9.2.1.13 “KPV”
K PV( r , M )

K Depp ( r , M )

2

K Depp ( r , M )

K PV( r , M )

(4.110)

9.2.1.14 “TL”
TL

h
m γγ

(4.196)

9.2.1.15 “ωg”
M .c
2 .h

ω g( M )

2

(4.207)

9.2.1.16 “ngg”
n gg ( M ) T L.ω g ( M )

(4.208)

9.2.1.17 “rω”
5

r ω ω Ω_3 , M

St G.

M

2

ω Ω_3

9

(4.212)

9.2.1.18 “aPV”
a PV( r , M , t )

i .

C PV n PV, r , M .e

π .n PV .ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .t .i

n PV

(4.436)

9.2.1.19 “ag”
a g ( r , M , φ, t )

π
g ( r , M ) . .sin 2 .π .ω Ω ( r , M ) .t
2

190

φ

(4.439)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.1.20 “gav”

g av ( r , M )

2

1.
T Ω ( r, M )
2
.

T Ω ( r, M )

a g( r, M , 0, t ) d t

0 .( s )

(4.440)

9.2.2 Planck-Particles
9.2.2.1 “mx”
mx

λx
2

(4.71)

4 . 2
6
π 3

(4.72)

9.2.2.2 “λx”
λx

9.2.2.3 “ρm, ρS”
. 94 kg
ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.34467810
3
m

(4.78)

ρS = ρm(λxλh,mxmh)
9.2.2.4 “r3, M3”
r3 = λxλh

(4.245)

M3 = mxmh = λxmh / 2

(4.246)

9.2.3 SBH’s
9.2.3.1 “StBH”
9

St BH

c.

c .St G
( 2 .G)

5

(4.138)

9.2.3.2 “ωΩ_4”
3

St BH.

ω Ω_4 M BH

1
M BH

(4.139)

9.2.3.3 “rS”
3

r S R BH

2
λ x.λ h .R BH

3

r S M BH
3

r S R BH

191

(4.146)

3 .M BH
4 .π .ρ S

(4.148)

2
3 .c .R BH
8 .π .G.ρ S

(4.150)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.3.4 “nΩ_4”
n Ω_4 M BH

n Ω_2 r S M BH , M BH

(4.157)

n Ω_5 M BH

n Ω_2 R BH M BH , M BH

(4.158)

9.2.3.5 “nΩ_5”

9.2.3.6 “nBH”
n BH M BH

n Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

(4.159)

9.2.3.7 “ωΩ_5”
ω Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_3 r S M BH , M BH

(4.161)

9.2.3.8 “ωBH”
ω BH M BH

ω Ω_5 M BH
ω Ω_4 M BH

(4.162)

9.2.3.9 “ωΩ_6”
ω Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_6 M BH

n Ω_4 M BH

(4.166)

9.2.3.10 “ωΩ_7”
ω Ω_4 M BH

ω Ω_7 M BH

n Ω_5 M BH

(4.167)

9.2.3.11 “ωPV_1”
ω Ω_6 M BH

ω PV_1 M BH

ω Ω_7 M BH

(4.168)

9.2.3.12 “ng”
n g ω , M BH

E M BH
E g( ω )

(4.177)

9.2.4 Cosmology
9.2.4.1 “r2, M2”
r2(r) = Kλ⋅r

(4.247)

M2(M) = Km⋅M = Kλ⋅M

(4.248)

9.2.4.2 “λy”
λ y r 2, M 2

1
ln n Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

192

(4.229)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.4.3 “KU”
K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

ln

λ y r 2, M 2
.M
C Ω_J1 λ y r 2 , M 2 .r 3 ,
3
2
C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2
5

5

K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

1

ln

2

9

(4.231)

7

.ln n
Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

3.

M3

26

9

.

M2

r2

9

r3

(4.232)

9.2.4.4 “AU”
A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

TL
K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

5

(4.233)

9.2.4.5 “RU”
R U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

c .A U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

(4.234)

9.2.4.6 “HU, HU2, HU5, |H|”
H U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

H U5( r , M )

1 .
ln
TL

( 3 .π )

µ

(4.235)

H U K λ .r , λ x.λ h , K m.M , m x.m h

H U2( r , M )
7 .µ .

1
A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

2

32

256

. µ m
.ln ( 3 π ) . h
4
M

H

µ

(4.276)

7 .µ

2

. r
λh

2
7 .µ

5

.

mh
M

d
H
dt

5 .µ

2

. r
λh

2
26 .µ

(4.529)

(4.378)

9.2.4.7 “Hα”
H α r 3, M 3

2.

2. . .
π G ρ m r 3, M 3
3

(4.237)

Hα(r3,M3) = ωh / λx
H α λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ωh
λx

(4.249)

9.2.4.8 “ρU, ρU2”
ρ U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

ρ U2( r , M )

193

3 .H U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3
8 .π .G
3 .H U2( r , M )
8 .π .G

2

(4.238)

2

(4.304)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.4.9 “MU”
M U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

V R U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 .ρ U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

(4.239)

9.2.4.10 “KT”
K T r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

H α r 3, M 3

n g ω Ω_3 r 3 , M 3 , M 3 .ln

H U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

8 . H α r 3, M 3
ln
3
H

K T( H )

(4.240)

(4.268)

9.2.4.11 “TW”
T W r 2, r 3, M 2 , M 3

KW
λ Ω_3 R U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 , M 3

(4.241)

KW

T W( H)
λ Ω_3

c λ x.
,
mh
H 2

(4.269)

9.2.4.12 “StT”
9

2

4. 3. 1 . λ x
3 4 c5 π .λ 2
h
3

St T

(4.274)

9.2.4.13 “TU, TU2, TU3, TU4, TU5”
T U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

K T r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 .T W r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3
ωh

K W .St T .ln

T U2( H )

T U3 H β

9

. H5

λ x.H

K W .St T .ln

(4.275)

1

T U5( r , M )

c

µ

.ln

.
. 4µ
H U5( r , M ) λ h

2 .µ

.

5 .µ

. H .H
β α

2

(4.318)

1
T U4( t ) K W .St T .ln H α .t .
t

KW

(4.242)

5 .µ

2

(4.331)
2 .µ

1
π .H α

2

. 2

.H ( r , M ) 5 µ
U5

(4.530)

9.2.4.14 “dTdt, dT2dt2, dT3dt3”
dT dt ( t )

K W .St T .

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

t

dT2 dt2 ( t )

K W .St T .

5 .µ

2

.t

2
2
5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ

t

194

5 .µ

1

2

.t2

(4.335)
1

2

1

(4.339)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

dT3 dt3 ( t )

K W .St T .

2
2
2
5 .µ .ln H α .t . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

t

3

5 .µ

2

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

2
.t3

2

2

(4.343)

9.2.4.15 “dHdt, dH2dt2”
1
H γ .H α

t

Hγ Hβ

η

(4.376)

2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

.

dH dt H γ

dH2 dt2 H γ

(4.359)

1

(4.361)

3
2
H α .H γ
. 5 .µ 2 . ln 1 . 5 .µ 2
2

5 .µ

1

2

1

(4.371)

9.2.4.16 “t1, t2, t3, t4, t5”
1

t1

e

5 .µ

2

. 1

10 .µ

t2

e

2

(4.334)
1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

. 1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

t3

e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

(4.338)
2

3

2

. 1

(4.342)

1

t4

e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

t5

e

. 1

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

(4.366)

2
1

2

. 1

(4.375)

9.2.5 ZPF
9.2.5.1 “Ω EGM”
Ω EGM

ρ U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
ρ U2 R o , M G
r x5
m g5

=

(4.308)

1.013403
1.052361

195

(4.298)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.5.2 “Ω ZPF”
Ω ZPF

Ω EGM

1

(4.313)

9.2.5.3 “UZPF”
3 .c .
H U2 R o , M G
Ω ZPF .
8 .π .G
2

U ZPF

2

(4.315)

9.2.6 EGM Construct limits
9.2.6.1 “ML”
ML

R EGM

K m.M G.

R EGM

5 5

.

K λ .R o

R EGM
K λ .R o

(4.409)

R U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

(4.410)

9.2.6.2 “rL”
rL

R BH M L

(4.411)

9.2.6.3 “tL”
tL

rL
c

(4.412)

9.2.6.4 “ML / rL = MEGM / REGM = tL / tEGM”
M L M EGM
rL
M EGM
t EGM

tL

R EGM t EGM

(4.415)

M U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h
A U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

(4.413)
(4.414)

9.2.7 Particle-Physics
9.2.7.1 “mγγ2”
m γγ2

h
tL

(4.446)

2 .m γγ2

(4.447)

9.2.7.2 “mgg2”
m gg2

9.2.7.3 “rγγ2”
5

r γγ2

r e.

m γγ2
m e .c

196

2

2

(4.451)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2.7.4 “rgg2”
r gg2

4 .r γγ2

5

(4.452)

9.2.7.5 “Nγ”
E Ω ( r, M )

N γ( r, M )

(4.457)

9.2.7.6 “Qγ”
Qe

Q γ( r, M )

N γ( r, M )

(4.458)

9.2.7.7 “Qγγ”
Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ ( r , M )

N γ( r, M )
Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ ( r , M )

Q γγ

9.2.7.8

(4.462)

2

Qe

(4.463)

2

Qe

(4.464)

“Qγγ2”
Q γγ2

Q γγ
m γγ

.m
γγ2

(4.470)

9.2.7.9 “tL / TL = mγγ / mγγ2 = Qγγ / Qγγ2”
tL

m γγ

Q γγ

T L m γγ2 Q γγ2

(4.468)

9.2.8 Other useful relationships

2

E Ω r ε,me

ω Ω r e, m e
.m
γγ
ω Ω r ε, m e

E Ω r e, m e

ω Ω r e, m e

197

(4.474)

2

m γγ

(4.476)
2

h .m γγ

(4.478)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

198

www.deltagroupengineering.com

APPENDIX 2.A
Note: “Quinta Essentia – Part 2” (QE2) is a summary of “Quinta Essentia – Part 3, 4” (QE3,4).
Subsequently, the calculation engine in QE2 utilises QE3,4 as its foundational construct. Please
consult QE3,4 as required.
Quinta Essentia – Part 2

MathCad 8 Professional: calculation engine

NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED

Computational environment


Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.

The following denotes output and data from QE4, serving as inputs (i.e. where required) for the
QE2 calculation engine,
T0

T U2 H U2 R o , M G

= 2.724752 ( K )

m g1

=

0.989364

r x5

1.057292

m g5

=

2.724
= 2.725 ( K )

T0
T0

r x1

∆T 0

∆T 0

2.726

1.013403
1.052361

QE2 calculation engine

Given
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , m g1 .M G
r x6
m g6

T0

∆T 0

T0

∆T 0

Find r x1, m g1

Given
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , m g1 .M G
r x7
m g7

Find r x1, m g1

Ω EGM r x0, m g0

ρ U2 r x0.R o , m g0 .M G
ρ U2 R o , M G

Ω ZPF r x0, m g0

199

1

Ω EGM r x0, m g0

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r x6

7.996943

MG

R o . r x5 = 8.107221 ( kpc )
8.218926
r x7

MS

m g6

. 11
6.33113310

. m g5 = 6.31416710
. 11
m g7

. 11
6.29698210

Ω EGM r x6, m g6

0.998993

Ω ZPF r x6, m g6

Ω EGM r x5, m g5

= 1.000331

Ω ZPF r x5, m g5

Ω EGM r x7, m g7

1.001671

.
1.00690410

3

.
3.31400710

4

Ω ZPF r x7, m g7

.
1.67100610

3

q SM_1 r x0, m g0

q 0 r x0, m g0

=

For “ΩZPF → –q0 → qSM_1”,
q 0 r x0, m g0

Ω ZPF r x0, m g0

q 0 r x6, m g6

.
1.00690410

3

q SM_1 r x6, m g6

q 0 r x5, m g5

= 3.31400710
.

4

q SM_1 r x5, m g5

q 0 r x7, m g7

.
1.67100610

3

q SM_1 r x7, m g7

.
1.00690410
=

3

.
3.31400710

4

.
1.67100610

3

For “Λ0”,
Λ 0 r x0, m g0
Λ 0 r x6, m g6

2 3
3 .H U2 R o , M G . .Ω EGM r x0, m g0
2

Λ 0 r x6, m g6

. 3
6.73006510

Λ 0 r x5, m g5

= 6.75716710
. 3

Λ 0 r x7, m g7

. 3
6.78429610

1

km
.
s Mpc

2

1. Λ
0
2
c
Λ0

7.864602

r x5, m g5

= 7.896273

r x7, m g7

7.927975

10

47
2

km

1

Λ 0 r x6, m g6
Λ 0 r x5, m g5

Λ 0 r x6, m g6

82.036971
= 82.20199
82.366838

11.919176
1

km
s .Mpc

Λ 0 r x5, m g5
1

Λ 0 r x7, m g7

= 11.895249

9
10 .yr

11.871442

Λ 0 r x7, m g7
1

Λ 0 r x6, m g6

2.656709
1

1
H U2 R o , M G

Λ 0 r x5, m g5
1

= 2.680636

9
10 .yr

2.704443

Λ 0 r x7, m g7
1

Λ 0 r x6, m g6
1
H0

1.852839
1

Λ 0 r x5, m g5
1

= 1.876767

9
10 .yr

1.900574

Λ 0 r x7, m g7

200

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

1

Λ 0 r x6, m g6

Λ 0 r x6, m g6
1

1
H0

Λ 0 r x5, m g5

0.803869
1

1
H U2 R o , M G

=

Λ 0 r x5, m g5

1

9
10 .yr

0.803869

1

Λ 0 r x7, m g7

0.803869

Λ 0 r x7, m g7
1

Λ 0 r x6, m g6

0.817733
1

H U2 R o , M G .

Λ 0 r x5, m g5
1

= 0.816091
0.814458

Λ 0 r x7, m g7

For “UΛ, UZPF, Uλ”,
2

U Λ r x0, m g0

c .
Λ 0 r x0, m g0
8 .π .G

U Λ r x6, m g6

3.787219

U Λ r x5, m g5

= 3.802471

U Λ r x7, m g7

3.817737

3 .c .
Ω ZPF r x0, m g0 .
H U2 R o , M G
8 .π .G
2

U ZPF r x0, m g0

U λ r x0, m g0

U Λ r x0, m g0

U ZPF r x0, m g0

10

10 .

Pa

U ZPF r x6, m g6
2

7.649839

U ZPF r x5, m g5

=

2.51778

10

13 .

Pa

12.695284

U ZPF r x7, m g7

U λ r x6, m g6

3.77957

U λ r x5, m g5

= 3.804989

U λ r x7, m g7

3.830432

10

10 .

Pa

U λ r x6, m g6
U ZPF r x6, m g6
U λ r x5, m g5
U ZPF r x5, m g5

494.071804
= 1.51124710
. 3

1

301.720886

U λ r x7, m g7

T U2 H U2 R o , M G
2 .∆T

T0

∆T 0

= 62.376832 ( % )

0

U ZPF r x7, m g7

For “q → qSM_2 ≈ ½”,

Λ ZPF r x0, m g0

8 .π .G .
U ZPF r x0, m g0
2
c

Λ ZPF r x6, m g6
Λ ZPF r x5, m g5
Λ ZPF r x7, m g7

201

13.594118
=

4.474212
22.560109

km
.
s Mpc

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Λ ZPF r x6, m g6
1. Λ
ZPF
2
c
Λ ZPF

Λ ZPF r x6, m g6

1.588578

r x5, m g5

= 0.522846

r x7, m g7

2.636323

10

49

Λ ZPF r x5, m g5

2

km

3.68702i
= 2.115233
4.749748

km
s .Mpc

Λ ZPF r x7, m g7
1

Λ ZPF r x6, m g6

265.20416i
1

Λ ZPF r x5, m g5
1

9
10 .yr

= 462.27198
205.866299

Λ ZPF r x7, m g7
1

Λ ZPF r x6, m g6

14.575885 265.20416i
1

1

=

Λ ZPF r x5, m g5

H U2 R o , M G

447.696095

9
10 .yr

191.290414

1

Λ ZPF r x7, m g7

q SM_2 r x0, m g0

Ω EGM r x0, m g0

Λ ZPF r x0, m g0

2

3 .H U2 R o , M G

2

q SM_2 r x6, m g6

0.500503

q SM_2 r x5, m g5

= 0.499834

q SM_2 r x7, m g7

0.499164

For “q → qSM_1 → ΩZPF”,
Let:

η q1 η q2 η q3

η .( 1 1 1 )

Given

1
q SM_1 r x5, m g5

1

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q1

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
q SM_1 r x6, m g6

1

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q2

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
q SM_1 r x7, m g7

1

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

η q3

1

202

www.deltagroupengineering.com

η q1

η q2

η q2

η q1 = 4.595344
4.595322
η q3

Find η q1 , η q2 , η q3

η q3
η . η q2

1

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

η q1

1

η q3

1

H U2 R o , M G

1=

.
3.57192910

4

4.595365

.
1.18155910

4

.
5.9333510

4

(%)

η q2


H U2 R o , M G

η q1

67.050522
= 67.095419


H U2 R o , M G

67.14033

km
.
s Mpc

η q3


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q2


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q1

14.583229
= 14.57347

9
10 .yr

14.563722
1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

1
H U2 R o , M G

η q3

.

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q2


H U2 R o , M G

η q1


H U2 R o , M G

0.050358
1 = 0.016569 ( % )
0.083515

η q3

203

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2

T U2

T U2

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q2


H U2 R o , M G

η q1

2.724
= 2.725 ( K )

2.726

H U2 R o , M G

η q3

For “q → qSM_2 ≈ ½”,
Let:

η q4 η q5 η q6

η .( 1 1 1 )

Given

1
q SM_2 r x5, m g5

1

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q4

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
q SM_2 r x6, m g6

1

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q5

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
q SM_2 r x7, m g7

1

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q6

1

H U2 R o , M G
η q4

η q5

η q5

η q4 = 4.606653
4.606632
η q6

Find η q4 , η q5 , η q6

η q6

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

4.606675

η q5


H U2 R o , M G

η q4


H U2 R o , M G

47.411877
= 47.443626
47.475383

km
.
s Mpc

η q6

204

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q5


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q4

20.623801
9
10 .yr

= 20.609999

20.596213
1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

1

.

H U2 R o , M G

T U2

T U2

η q4

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

29.324934
1=

29.277606 ( % )
29.230268

η q6

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

η q5

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

T U2

η q6

η q5


H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

η q4

2.252547
= 2.253374 ( K )

2.254201

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

η q6

For “q → qSM_2 ≈ -½”,
Let:

η q7 η q8 η q9

η .( 1 1 1 )

Given

1
q SM_2 r x5, m g5

1

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

η q7

1

205

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1
q SM_2 r x6, m g6

1

H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

η q8

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
q SM_2 r x7, m g7

1

H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

η q9

1

H U2 R o , M G

η q7

η q8

η q8

η q7 = 4.588735
4.588742
η q9

Find η q7 , η q8 , η q9

η q9

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

4.588728

η q8


H U2 R o , M G

η q7

82.174949
= 82.15662


H U2 R o , M G

82.138273

km
.
s Mpc

η q9


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q8


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q7

11.899163
= 11.901818

9
10 .yr

11.904476
1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

1
H U2 R o , M G

η q9

.

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q8


H U2 R o , M G

η q7


H U2 R o , M G

22.495045
1 = 22.467722 ( % )
22.440373

η q9

206

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2

T U2

T U2

T U2

T U2

T U2

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q8


H U2 R o , M G

3.045402

η q7

= 3.045029 ( K )

3.044656

H U2 R o , M G

η q9

H U2 R o , M G

η q8

T U2


H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

T U2

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

T U2

0.792854

η q4

= 0.791655 ( K )

η q9

η q5

η q7


H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

0.790455

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

η q6

Checking calculations,
1

H
q

1

. d H
dt

q

Λ

2

3 .H

H

2

1

Λ

2

3 .H

1

. d H
dt

2

For “q → qSM_1 → ΩZPF”,
Let:

η q10 η q11 η q12

η .( 1 1 1 )

Given

1
Ω EGM r x5, m g5

Λ 0 r x5, m g5

2

3 .H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q10

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
Ω EGM r x6, m g6

Λ 0 r x6, m g7

2

3 .H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q11

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

207

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1
Ω EGM r x7, m g7

Λ 0 r x7, m g7

2

3 .H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q12

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

η q10

η q10

η q11

η q11 = 4.595363
4.595322
η q12

Find η q10 , η q11 , η q12

η q12

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

4.595344

η q11


H U2 R o , M G

67.055441

η q10

= 67.095419


H U2 R o , M G

67.14033

km
.
s Mpc

η q12


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q11


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q10

14.582159
= 14.57347

9
10 .yr

14.563722
1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

1
H U2 R o , M G

η q12

.

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q11


H U2 R o , M G

η q10


H U2 R o , M G

0.043026
1 = 0.016569 ( % )
0.083515

η q12

208

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2

T U2

T U2

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q11


H U2 R o , M G

η q10

2.72411
=

2.725

( K)

2.726

H U2 R o , M G

η q12

For “q → qSM_2 ≈ ½”,
Let:

η q13 η q14 η q15

η .( 1 1 1 )

1
Ω EGM r x5, m g5
2

.dH
dt

Λ ZPF r x5, m g5
3 .H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

η q13

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
Ω EGM r x6, m g6
2

.dH
dt

Λ ZPF r x6, m g7
3 .H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

η q14

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
Ω EGM r x7, m g7
2

.dH
dt

Λ ZPF r x7, m g7
3 .H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G
η q13

η q14

η q14

η q13 = 4.606653
4.606632
η q15

η q15

Find η q13 , η q14 , η q15

η q15

4.606675

209

www.deltagroupengineering.com

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

η q14


H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

η q13

47.411877
= 47.443626

47.475383

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

km
s .Mpc

η q15


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q14


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q13

20.623801
9
10 .yr

= 20.609999

20.596213
1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

1
H U2 R o , M G

.

dH dt

dH dt

T U2

T U2

T U2

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

η q15

H U2 R o , M G

η q14


H U2 R o , M G

η q13

29.324934
1=


H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

29.277606 ( % )
29.230268

η q15


η q14


H U2 R o , M G

η q13


H U2 R o , M G

2.252547
= 2.253374 ( K )
2.254201

η q15

210

www.deltagroupengineering.com

For “q → qSM_2 ≈ -½”,
Let:

η q16 η q17 η q18

η .( 1 1 1 )

1
Ω EGM r x5, m g5

Λ ZPF r x5, m g5

2

3 .H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

η q16

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
Ω EGM r x6, m g6

Λ ZPF r x6, m g7

2

3 .H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

η q17

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
Ω EGM r x7, m g7

Λ ZPF r x7, m g7

2

3 .H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

.dH
dt

1
2

1

H U2 R o , M G

η q16
η q17

η q16
Find η q16 , η q17 , η q18

η q18

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q18

4.588735

η q17 = 4.588728
4.588742
η q18

η q17


H U2 R o , M G

η q16


H U2 R o , M G

82.174949
= 82.15662
82.138273

km
s .Mpc

η q18

211

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q17


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q16

11.899163
9
10 .yr

= 11.901818

11.904476
1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

1

.

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

dH dt

T U2

T U2

T U2

η q18

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q17


H U2 R o , M G

η q16

22.495045
1 = 22.467722 ( % )

22.440373

H U2 R o , M G

η q18

H U2 R o , M G

η q17


H U2 R o , M G

η q16

3.045402
= 3.045029 ( K )

3.044656

H U2 R o , M G

η q18

For “Λ0 = ΛZPF = 0”,
Let:

η q19 η q20 η q21

1
Ω EGM r x5, m g5

.dH
dt

η .( 1 1 1 )

H U2 R o , M G

1

2
H U2 R o , M G

η q19


1

212

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1
Ω EGM r x6, m g6

.dH
dt

η q20

H U2 R o , M G

1

2

1

H U2 R o , M G

1
Ω EGM r x7, m g7

.dH
dt

η q21

H U2 R o , M G

1

2

1

H U2 R o , M G

η q19

η q19

η q20

η q20 = 4.606642
4.606686
η q21

Find η q19 , η q20 , η q21

η q21

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

4.606664

η q20


H U2 R o , M G

η q19

47.459642
= 47.427906


H U2 R o , M G

47.396115

km
s .Mpc

η q21


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q20


1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q19

20.603044
= 20.616831

9
10 .yr

20.630659
1

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q21

213

www.deltagroupengineering.com

dH dt

1
H U2 R o , M G

.

dH dt

dH dt

T U2

T U2

T U2

dH dt

dH dt

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η q20


H U2 R o , M G

η q19

29.253731
1=


H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

29.30104 ( % )
29.348429

η q21


η q20


H U2 R o , M G

η q19


H U2 R o , M G

2.253791
= 2.252965 ( K )
2.252137

η q21

NOTES

214

www.deltagroupengineering.com

APPENDIX 2.B
The Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) harmonic representation of fundamental particles [i.e.
Eq. (3.230)] may be generalised to incorporate any meaningful physical quantity199 in relation to a
reference particle; represented by “r2, M2, S2, Q2” as follows200,
M1
M2

2

.

r2

ψ

5

St ω

r1

9

(3.230)

.

St ι ( ψ )

Π

Π

ψ

St ω

1)

(2.48)

ψ=1

Let “ψ = 4”; substituting appropriately yields Eq. (2.49) [below] according to,
substitute , St ι ( 1 )
ψ
KΠ.

St ι ( ψ )
ψ=1

Π

ψ

Π

St ω

1)

substitute , St ι ( 2 )
substitute , St ι ( 3 )
substitute , St ι ( 4 )

M1
M2
r1
r2
S1

Π

KΠ.

M1
M2

Π

1

.

r1
r2

Π

2

.

S1
S2

Π

3

.

Q1
Q2

4

Π

St ω

5

S2
Q1
Q2

where,
• “KΠ → KΠ(r1,2,M1,2,S1,2,Q1,2,Π1,2,3,4,5)” denotes the appropriate Experimental Relationship
Function (ERF).
• “M1,2” denotes particle rest-mass.
• “r1,2” denotes Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) equilibrium radius [e.g. Root-Mean-Square (RMS)
charge radius].
• “S1,2” denotes Spin Angular Momentum (SAM).
• “Q1,2” denotes Electric charge.
• Possible solution → “Π1 = 2, Π2 = -5, Π5 = 9”.
• Requiring solution or specification → “Π3,4”.
Therefore, Eq. (2.49) may be utilised to articulate a single representation of any fundamental
particle incorporating mass, size, spin and charge, in relation to an arbitrarily selected reference (i.e.
base) particle.
Note: a worked example of Eq. (2.49)201 has been deliberately omitted and is proposed as a simple
exercise for the reader (hint: a family of representations exist).

199

Such as spin angular momentum or Electric charge in order to completely describe it.
Shown on the front cover of QE3.
201
Solving for “KΠ, Π3,4”.
200

215

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

216

www.deltagroupengineering.com

APPENDIX 2.C
Charge
If we were compelled to associate the production of Photons with one specific particle, what
would it be? The answer to this question is obvious (i.e. the Electron) as we see evidence of
Photonic production by Electronic means in our everyday life in the form of television, radio and
the internet. However, the Photon itself possesses charge according to the PDG202. Thus, it seems
“reasonable” to expect that the particle best associated with the production of Photons, may have its
own charge properties expressed in terms of Photon populations.
The EGM construct treats all matter as radiators of populations of conjugate Photon pairs.
Subsequently, quantifying this characteristic in terms of Electron charge is a natural conclusion.
Moreover, the Electron itself is a practical measure of charge and the successful quantification of it
implicitly produces all charge multiples (i.e. the Proton etc.). In other words, if one can derive the
magnitude of Electron charge, one has derived the magnitudes of all multiples of charge utilising a
single paradigm.
The Photon charge threshold “Qγ” and upper limit “Qγγ” is derived in QE4. The derived “Qγ”
203
result compares favourably to the PDG value (i.e. to within a factor of “1.884”), leading to the
derivation of “Qγγ”. It is possible to derive “Qγγ” again herein (or alternatively, the Electric Charge
“Qe”) in a slightly different manner; demonstrating that Electronic charge may be represented as the
sum of a population of Photons, each Photon carrying a charge of “Qγγ”. To facilitate this, let the
Photon charge per unit mass-energy204 (based upon the Electron) be given by “Qmγγ” according to,
Q mγγ

Q γγ
m γγ

(2.50)

Q mγγ = 3.534774 10

34 .

C
eV

(2.51)

Hence, the Photon charge205 at the Electron harmonic cut-off frequency “QΩ” may be written as
follows,
QΩ

Q mγγ .E Ω r ε , m e

Q Ω = 7.650948 10

(2.52)

21 .

C

(2.53)

where, “EΩ(rε,me)” denotes the propagation energy of a Photon at the Electron harmonic cut-off
frequency. Moreover, recognizing that:
Qe

1.

= 20.94089

QΩ

(2.54)

2

ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

γ

= 20.947273

(2.55)

Provokes the solution,
Q e Σ C.Q Ω

(2.56)

ΣC

1.
2

ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

γ

(2.57)

202

“QPDG < 5 x10-30Qe”: http://pdg.lbl.gov/, W.-M. Yao et al., Journal of Physics G 33, 1 (2006) and
2007 partial update for edition 2008.
203
“Qγ < 2.7 x10-30Qe”.
204
“mγγ” denotes the rest mass-energy of a Photon (see: QE3).
205
The “Pauli Exclusion Principle” does not apply to Photons. Therefore, no distinction may be
drawn between a single Photon and a population of coherent Photons propagating at a specific
frequency.
217

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Evaluating yields,
Σ C .Q Ω = 1.602665 10

19 .

C

(2.58)

Comparing the preceding result to “Qe” produces a derived Electronic charge to within
“0.031(%)” of the NIST value as follows,
Σ C.Q Ω

1 = 0.030484 ( % )

Qe

(2.59)

Hence; utilising “Qe”, “Qγγ” may be written in agreement with the derivation in QE4206 as follows,
Q γγ

Q e .m γγ
Σ C.E Ω r ε , m e

Q e .m γγ
Σ C.E Ω r ε , m e

= 1.12905 10

(2.60)
78 .

C

(2.61)

The preceding equations demonstrate that Electronic charge may be characterised by the
proportional sum of Photonic charges within its radiated wavefunction spectrum propagating at the
harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ(rε,me)”. The error associated with “Qe” utilising the QE4
approximation of “Qγγ” is quasi-negligible, if the definition of “Qγγ” above is utilised [i.e. Eq.
(2.60)], the error is zero.
Momentum

Construct

The radiated wavefunction spectrum is composed of populations of conjugate Photon pairs
described by a Fourier distribution producing a constant magnitude function as the number of
harmonic modes approaches infinity. A Fourier distribution involves the hybridisation of two
spectra [i.e. amplitude207 and frequency208 (see: QE3)] which combine to produce an energetically
efficient equivalent representation of gravitational acceleration “g” (see: QE3 for the complete
derivation).
The reason EGM utilises a Fourier distribution in its formulation, as opposed to any other
distribution, is because various other combinations of amplitude and frequency spectra do not
harmonically describe “g” at a mathematical point as energetically efficiently as a Fourier
distribution (i.e. if the composite wavefunctions are considered to represent Photons). Naturally,
one expects that the momentum of the spectrum of radiated conjugate Photon pairs propagating at
“c” be conserved.
To confirm this expectation, we shall determine the average spectral momentum for
comparison to an analogous Newtonian system. If the two results coincide, we have confirmed that
the EGM construct is appropriately and consistently formulated. Firstly, considering the momentum
of a Photon at the harmonic cut-off frequency “Pγγ” yields,
P γγ ( r , M )

h.
ω Ω ( r, M )
c

(2.62)

Since “ωΩ” is formulated in accordance with an arithmetic sequence, the average spectral frequency
and period is given by “ωav” and “Tav” respectively according to,
206

“Qγγ ≤ 7.05 x10-60Qe”.
Spectral amplitude decreases as “nPV” increases.
208
Spectral frequency increases as “nPV” increases.
207

218

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω av ( r , M )

ω Ω ( r, M )
2

T av ( r , M )

(2.63)

1
ω av ( r , M )

(2.64)

Hence, the momentum of a Photon at the average spectral frequency is given by “Pγγ_ω_av” such that,
h.
ω av ( r , M )
c

P γγ _ω_av ( r , M )

(2.65)

The EGM construct describes gravitational fields as a double sided harmonic spectrum in
accordance with a Fourier distribution, asserting that all starving matter contains a population of
“nγγ” Photons and exists for a minimum gravitational lifetime of “TL” as derived in QE4.
Subsequently, Photon emission rates (i.e. per second) per side of a double sided modal spectrum is
given by “nγγ_av_s” according to,
n γγ _av_s ( M )

n γγ ( M )
2 .T L

(2.66)

Hence, the average Photon emission per average period “nγγ_av_T” becomes,
n γγ _av_T ( r , M )

n γγ _av_s ( M ) .T av ( r , M )

(2.67)

Consequently, the average momentum of each Photon over the average period “Pγγ_av_T” is given by,
P γγ _av_T ( r , M )

n γγ _av_T ( r , M ) .P γγ _ω_av ( r , M )

(2.68)

Subsequently, it follows that the analogous orbital angular momentum of a Photon “PO_γγ_av_T”
utilising the preceding equation is,
P O_γγ _av_T ( r , M )

r .P γγ _av_T ( r , M )

(2.69)

Applying the definition of a Graviton under the EGM construct, the analogous orbital angular
momentum of a Graviton “PO_gg_av_T” may be stated as,
P O_gg_av_T ( r , M )

2 .P O_γγ _av_T ( r , M )

(2.70)

Thus, by Newtonian analogy, “PO_gg_av_T” may be pictorially illustrated by two counter
rotating half masses, representing the conjugate EGM wavefunction construct as follows,

0.5M

0.5M

r

Figure 2.3,
The mechanical representation of the orbital angular momentum of a “½M” particle about a radial
centre is given by “IO”,
I O( v , r , M )

219

v .r .

M
2

(2.71)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

where, the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum of the system depicted is “IS”,
2 . I O( v , r , M )

I S( v , r , M )

(2.72)

Sample calculation
Performing sample calculations utilising “Up Quark” properties yields,
P γγ r uq , m uq

P γγ _ω_av r uq , m uq

P gg r uq , m uq

P gg_ ω_av r uq , m uq

n γγ _av_T r uq , m uq

=

n gg_av_T r uq , m uq
P γγ _av_T r uq , m uq

=

P gg_av_T r uq , m uq

P O_γγ _av_T r uq , m uq
P O_gg_av_T r uq , m uq

=

.
8.0973210

14

. 14
4.0486610

.
1.61946410

13

. 14
8.0973210

.
2.31325910

8

.
4.62651910

8

0.93656

10

1.87312

=

( Ns )

(2.73)

(2.74)
21 .

Ns

(2.75)

0.719452

10

1.438905

39 .

Ns .m

(2.76)

Since the preceding pictorial representation is a non-physical Newtonian analogy, we may
ignore relativistic effects and assume that “v → c” at “r” such that for the “Up Quark” and the
Electron,
I O c , r uq , m uq

=

I O c, r ε , m e

0.719452
1.612205

10

39 .

Ns .m

(2.77)

Hence; “PO_gg_av_T = IS” according to,
1

.

I S c , r uq , m uq
1

.

I S c, r ε , m e

P O_γγ _av_T r uq , m uq

=

P O_gg_av_T r uq , m uq

P O_γγ _av_T r ε , m e
P O_gg_av_T r ε , m e

=

0.5
1

(2.78)

0.5
1

(2.79)

Computing errors
Determining the Newtonian analogy error with respect to other fundamental particles yields,
P O_gg_av_T r ε , m e

P O_gg_av_T r π , m p

I S c, r ε , m e

I S c, r π , m p

P O_gg_av_T r ν , m n

P O_gg_av_T r µ , m µ

I S c, r ν, m n

I S c, r µ, m µ

P O_gg_av_T r τ , m τ

P O_gg_av_T r en , m en

I S c, r τ , m τ

I S c , r en , m en

P O_gg_av_T r µn , m µn

P O_gg_av_T r τn , m τn

I S c , r µn , m µn

I S c , r τn , m τn

220

. 14
2.22044610
1=

.
2.22044610

14

.
2.22044610

14

0

. 14
1.11022310

.
1.11022310

14

. 14
1.11022310

.
4.44089210

14

(%)

(2.80)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

P O_gg_av_T r uq , m uq

P O_gg_av_T r dq , m dq

I S c , r uq , m uq

I S c , r dq , m dq

P O_gg_av_T r sq , m sq

P O_gg_av_T r cq , m cq

I S c , r sq , m sq

I S c , r cq , m cq

P O_gg_av_T r bq , m bq

P O_gg_av_T r tq , m tq

I S c , r bq , m bq

I S c , r tq , m tq

P O_gg_av_T r W , m W

P O_gg_av_T r Z , m Z

I S c, r W , m W

I S c, r Z, m Z

P O_gg_av_T r H , m H
I S c , r H, m H

.
2.22044610
1=

14

0
.
2.22044610
.
2.22044610

14
14

0
.
2.22044610

14

.
4.44089210

14

.
2.22044610

14

(%)

(2.81)
.
1 = 2.22044610

14

( %)

(2.82)

Therefore, based upon the preceding results; the radiated wavefunction spectrum may be
represented analogously in terms of classical orbital mechanics at the ZPF equilibrium radius
rotating at the speed of light.
NOTES

221

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

222

www.deltagroupengineering.com

APPENDIX 2.D
Note: “Quinta Essentia – Part 2” is a summary of “Quinta Essentia – Part 3, 4”. Subsequently, the
simulation and calculation engine in “Part 4” is a natural extension of “Part 3”, utilising it as a
foundational construct. Hence, the calculation engine developed in “Part 3, 4” has been included
(verbatim) herein for reference. Please consult “Part 3, 4” if required.
Quinta Essentia – Part 3

MathCad 8 Professional: calculation engine
a. Computational environment

NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED


Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
b. Units of measure (definitions)

Scale 1

10

Scale 2

10

3

3

10
6

10

6

10

9

9

10

10

12

10
12

10
15

10

15

10

18

10

( mm µm nm pm fm am zm ym )

18

10

21

10

10

10

24

24

Scale 1 .( m)

( mHz µHz nHz pHz fHz aHz zHz yHz )
( mJ µJ nJ pJ fJ aJ zJ yJ )

21

Scale 1 .( Hz)

Scale 1 .( J )
Scale 1 .( W )

( mW µW nW pW fW aW zW yW )
( mΩ µΩ nΩ pΩ fΩ aΩ zΩ yΩ )
( mV µV nV pV fV aV zV yV )

Scale 1 .( ohm )

Scale 1 .( V)

( mPa µPa nPa pPa fPa aPa zPa yPa )
( mT µT nT pT fT aT zT yT )

Scale 1 .( T )

( mNs µNs nNs pNs fNs aNs zNs yNs )
( mN µN nN pN fN aN zN yN )

Scale 1 .( Pa )

Scale 1 .( Ns )

Scale 1 .( newton )

( mgs µgs ngs pgs fgs ags zgs ygs )

Scale 1 .( gauss )

223

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Scale 1 .( gm )

( mgm µgm ngm pgm fgm agm zgm ygm )
( mSt µSt nSt pSt fSt aSt zSt ySt )

Scale 1

( kSt MSt GSt TSt PSt ESt ZSt YSt )

Scale 2

( kHz MHz GHz THz PHz EHz ZHz YHz)

Scale 2 .( Hz)

Scale 2 .( newton )

( kN MN GN TN PN EN ZN YN )

Scale 2 .( J )

( kJ MJ GJ TJ PJ EJ ZJ YJ )

Scale 2 .( W )

( kW MW GW TW PW EW ZW YW )

Scale 2 .( ohm )

( kΩ MΩ GΩ TΩ PΩ EΩ ZΩ YΩ )

Scale 2 .( V)

( kV MV GV TV PV EV ZV YV)

Scale 2 .( Pa )

( kPa MPa GPa TPa PPa EPa ZPa YPa )

Scale 2 .( T )

( kT MT GT TT PT ET ZT YT )

( keV MeV GeV TeV PeV EeV ZeV YeV)

Scale 2 .( eV)

Ns newton .s

c. Constants (definitions)

G

ε0

α

.
6.674210

3

m

11 .

kg .s

.
8.85418781710

2

12 .

F

c

m
299792458.
s

h

.
6.626069310

µ0

34 .

( J .s )

7 newton
4 .π .10 .
2
A

.
eV 1.6021765310

19 .

( J)

m
.
7.29735256810

3

.
1.6021765310

Qe

19 .

( C)

γ

0.5772156649015328

d. Fundamental particle characteristics (definitions or initialisation values)
m e m p m n m µ m τ m AMC

. 31 1.6726217110
. 27 1.6749272810
. 27 1.883531410
. 28 3.1677710
. 27 1.6605388610
. 27 .( kg )
9.109382610

λ Ce λ CP λ CN λ Cµ λ Cτ

ω Ce ω CP ω CN ω Cµ ω Cτ

h. 1
c

1

1

1

1

me mp mn mµ mτ
2
2 .π .c .

h

me mp mn mµ mτ

224

www.deltagroupengineering.com

eV
6
6
3 0.19.10 18.2.10 .
2
c

m en m µn m τn

Note: for the Bottom Quark, the “SLAC” estimate is utilised initially.
4 .10

m uq m dq m sq m cq m bq m tq

( 80.425 91.1876 114.4 ) .

mW mZ mH

GeV
0.13 1.35 4.7 179.4 .
2
c

2

( 2.817940325 0.875 0.85 ) .( fm)

re rp rn
0.85.10

3

GeV
c

r xq

8 .10

3

16 .

( cm)

.
0.529177210810

r Bohr

10

.( nm )
656.469624182052

λB

( m)

e. Planck characteristics (definitions)
G.h

λh

c

3

h .c

mh

G.h

th

G

c

1

ωh

5

th

f. Astronomical statistics
MM ME MJ MS

5
1738 6377.18 71492 6.96.10 .( km)

RM RE RJ RS
2
c .R E
2 .G

M BH

200.R S

R RG

24
24
24
30
0.0735.10 5.977.10 1898.8.10 1.989.10 .( kg )

R BH

2 .G .
M BH
2
c

M NS

1 .M S

R NS

M RG

4 .M S

R WD

4200.( km)

M WD

20.( km)

3
300.10 .M E

g. Other
.10
M BH = 4.29379067958471

33

( kg )

mx

mp

rx

r Bohr

h. Arbitrary values for illustrational purposes
ω

KR

1 .( Hz)

1

k

1

R max

X

4
10 .( km)

r

1

∆R max

RE

F 0( k )

1

K 0( ω , X )

1

R max
250

225

www.deltagroupengineering.com

i. PV / ZPF equations
2.

K PV( r , M )

e

G .M

3

2
r .c

K 0( r , M )

K PV( r , M ) .e

K EGM_N( r , M )

K PV( r , M )

2

2 . ∆K 0( r , M )

G.M .
KR
2
r .c

∆K 0( r , M )

K PV( r , M )

K EGM_E( r , M )

e

G.M .

C PV n PV, r , M

2

r

2

1

T PV n PV, r , M

n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r

ω PV n PV, r , M

π .n PV

c

λ PV n PV, r , M

ω PV n PV, r , M

2 . ∆K 0( r , M )

U m( r , M )

ω PV n PV, r , M

3 .M .c

2

4 .π .r

3

3

U ω( r , M )

n Ω ( r, M )

h .
4
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3
2 .c
Ω ( r, M )

4

12

Ω ( r, M )

∆ω PV( r , M )

ω Ω ( r, M )

∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M

c.

λ PV n PV, r

ω Ω ( r, M )

n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

U ω( r , M )

S m( r , M )

∆r , M
∆r , M

1
ω Ω(r

108.

ω PV( 1 , r , M )

ω PV n PV, r

∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆λ Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

1

U m( r , M )

Ω ( r, M )

12. 768 81.

c .U m( r , M )

∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

ω β r , ∆r , M , K R

U ω( r , M )

N ∆r( r , M )

ω Ω ( r, M ) .

∆r
c

ω PV n PV, r , M
λ PV n PV, r , M

1
∆r , M )

ω Ω ( r, M )

3 .M .c .
4 .π
2

∆K C( r , ∆r , M )

2

∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M .∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M

∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M

∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

U m( r , M )

∆v δr n Ω ( r , M ) , r , ∆r , M

∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .

4

4

µ0

ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

ε0

ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )

∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )

4

(r

1

∆r )

3

2 .c .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
h

3

r

3

n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

4
K R . ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

226

1

∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )

4

ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )

∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )

4

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω β r , ∆r , M , K R

n β r , ∆r , M , K R

∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

ω Ω(r

∆ω S r , ∆r , M , K R

∆r , M )

∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

St γ ( r , ∆r , M )

ω Ω ( r, M )

ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .

St α ( r , ∆r , M )

∆n S r , ∆r , M , K R

ω PV( 1 , r , M )

ω Ce

µ0

n β r , ∆r , M , K R

∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

∆ω R( r , ∆r , M )

∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

ω β r , ∆r , M , K R

St β ( r , ∆r , M )

ε0

n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

St δ( r , ∆r , M )

n Ω(r

∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ce
∆r , M )

n Ω ( r, M )

∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M

St ε n PV, r , ∆r , M

∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M )

j. Casimir equations
ω C( ∆r )

c
.
2 ∆r

E C( r , ∆r , M )

ω X( r , ∆r , M )

N C( r , ∆r , M )

λ C( ∆r )

π .N X( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

ω C( ∆r )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )

Σ HR( A , D , r , ∆r , M )

∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )

ω C( ∆r )

c .K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M )

N TR( A , D , r , ∆r , M )

F PP( r , ∆r )

c

A D St N

N T A , D , N X( r , ∆r , M )
N T A , D , N C( r , ∆r , M )

Σ H A , D , N X( r , ∆r , M )
Σ H A , D , N C( r , ∆r , M )

π .h .c .A PP( r )
4
480.∆r

F PV( r , ∆r , M )

N X( r , ∆r , M )

B C( r , ∆r , M )

λ X( r , ∆r , M )

(1 1 1 )

Σ H A , D, N T

N R( r , ∆r , M )

n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

1

ln 2 .n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )

γ

E C( r , ∆r , M )
c
c
ω X( r , ∆r , M )
St N

N T A , D , St N

NT

. 2 .A

2

N C( r , ∆r , M )

A PP( r ) .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .

D

D

D. N T

N X( r , ∆r , M )

A

1

A PP( r )

N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )

2

.ln

4 .π .r

2

N X( r , ∆r , M )

4

N C( r , ∆r , M )

8 .π .G .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
2
3 .c

227

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2

4

8 .π .G . F PV( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
2
A PP( r )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
3 .c

St ∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )

∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )

Λ R( r , ∆r , M )

∆ω δr_Error( r , ∆r , M )

St ∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )

9 .G.M . ∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )

∆Λ EGM( r , ∆r , M )

3

2
U m( r , M )
. 3 .
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) 2
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )

∆Λ Error( r , ∆r , M )

ω PV( 1 , r , M )

2 .r

2

2 3
1 . 16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .∆r4 N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )

St PP K P , r , ∆r , M

2

4

2 3
16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
4 N ( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
.
.
.
27 c M ∆r
C

K P( r , ∆r , M )

1

ω PV( 1 , r , M )

1

∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )

1

4

∆Λ EGM( r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )

.

∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )

ω PV( 1 , r , M )

.

∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )

k. Fundamental particle equations

512.h .G.m e

.

2

c . π .r e

n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
5

2 .m γγ

m gg

φ γγ

r e.

r γγ

2.

φ gg

r γγ

γ

2

m γγ
m e .c

r gg

2

ω Ω ( r, M )

St ζ( r , M )

r gg

h .ω Ω r e , m e

EΩ

ω Ce

5

3

4 .r γγ

St η ( r , M )

2

π

ω Ω ( r, M )
ω CP

EΩ

m γγ

1

Km


ω Ω ( r, M )

St θ ( r , M )

ω CN

Note: the highlighted equation is not included as a constraint. This is the most significant difference
between the calculation engine and the “complete algorithm” of Appendix 3.K.
5

1

c .ω Ce

4

5

.

2
4
27.ω h .ω Ce
4
32.π

.

ω CP

3

.

ω CP

5

1

.

rµ rτ

r ε.

1 . mµ
9
4 me

2 5

1 . mτ
9
6 me

1

5

1 . me
r π.
9
2 mp

2

ω CN

3

ω CN
5

1

5

2

r en r µn r τn

r ε.

m en
me

2

5

r µ.

m µn

2

5

r τ.

m τn

2

Given
5

r ε r π.

1 . me
9
2 mp

2

228

www.deltagroupengineering.com

α

2

.e

3


α

.e



π





1

5

Find r ε , r π , r ν , r µ , r τ , r en , r µn , r τn

3 .r xq. 2

r uq

m dq

5

2

r dq

m uq

r uq

m dq

.

2

m uq

r en
r µn
r τn
5

2

m sq

9

St sq

St dq

ω Ω r dq , m dq

St dq

floor St dq

St sq

ω Ω r xq, m sq

St sq

floor St sq

St cq
St bq

1
ω Ω r uq , m uq

St tq

. ω Ω r xq, m cq

St cq

floor St cq

ω Ω r xq, m bq

St bq

floor St bq

ω Ω r xq, m tq

St tq

floor St tq

5

m cq

r sq
r cq
r bq

5

r uq .

1
m uq

.
2

St cq

9

m bq

2

5

r tq

St bq
5

m tq

ω Ω r uq , m uq

St uq

floor St uq

St dq

ω Ω r dq , m dq

St dq

floor St dq

ω Ω r sq , m sq

St sq

floor St sq

ω Ω r cq , m cq

St cq

floor St cq

St bq

ω Ω r bq , m bq

St bq

floor St bq

St tq

ω Ω r tq , m tq

St tq

floor St tq

St sq

1

St cq

ω Ω r ε, m e

.

229

9

2

St tq
St uq

2

9

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9
5
St uq .r uq

m uq

9
5
St dq .r dq

m dq
m sq

me

m cq

m bq

5

9
5
St sq .r sq

.

1 . m tq
r uq .
9
10 m uq

r tq

9
5
St cq .r cq

5

2

r u( M )

h
.
4 π .c .M

rW

r u mW

rZ

r u mZ

rH

r u mH

9
5
St bq .r bq

m tq

9
5
St tq .r tq

ω Ω r u mW ,mW

St W

round St W , 0

. ω Ω r u mZ ,mZ

St Z

round St Z , 0

ω Ω r u mH ,mH

St H

round St H , 0

St W
1

St Z

ω Ω r uq , m uq

St H

5

1
St W

rW

5

5

1

r uq .

rZ

.

m uq

rH

2

9

.m 2
W

1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z

5

rL

3

1 .
2
mH
9

St H

1.

r QB

9

r uq

m QB St ω , r QB

Let:

r dq

r sq

r cq

9
m uq . St ω .

r bq

r QB
r uq

r tq

rW

rZ

rH

m L St ω , r L

9
m e . St ω .

rL

5

5

4. . 3
πr
3

V( r )

Q( r )

1
V( r )

Q ch ( r )

Q( r )
3

r dr

5.

3

1

x

2

Given
2

x

ln( x) .
2

x
x

KS

1
1 3

Find( x)
2
3 . π .r ν ( 1 x) .x3
.
2
8
1 x x

b1

2
3 .r ν

.
2

KS
2

x

KX

2
0.113. fm

1

230

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6 .b 1 .K X . x

2

rX

3 .b 1 . x

2

1

1

r νM

KS

2.
3

. e

3
5
2
π .r ν . x

r πE

r πM

r dr .

r dr

fm

r
x .r

1.
e
3
x

1

1

2

r

ρ ch ( r )

rν.

fm

1

K S.

KS

2

fm

2
ν

10.r ν

1

V

volt

Given
r dr

r ν .ρ ch r νM

ρ ch ( r ) d r

r dr

r ν .ρ ch r πE

ρ ch ( r ) d r

r ν .ρ ch r πM

ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr

r νM
Find r νM , r πE, r πM

r πE
r πM

r νM

r νM

r πE

r πE .( fm)

r πM

r πM

5
5

r ν2 r ν3 r ν5

λ A( r, M )

m en
1 .
r ε.
2
9
me
2

2

5

r µ.

m µn
9

3

2

5

r τ.

m τn

r ν .( fm)

KS

K S . fm

2

2

9

5

λ PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .n Ω ( r , M )

Given

λ A K ω .r x, m AMC
λB

rx

1

Find r x

231

www.deltagroupengineering.com

l. Particle summary matrix 3.1
2
0.69. fm
0.848.( fm)


r πE

KX
KS

=

0.113

2

0.113364

0.857.( fm)

r πM

fm

1.

r πE

2

830.702612 830.662386

=
r νM

rp

848.636631

848

850.059022

857

874.696943

875

( am)

826.944318 825.617412

rX

r νM

0.879.( fm)

879.064943

879

2

.e

3

m tq = 178.440506

GeV
c

2

.e

.
7.29735310

3

= 7.29735310
.

3

λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
λB

3.141593

=

657.329013
656.469624

( nm )


1 .r ε .
e
α rπ


2

1 .r ε .
e
α rν

3


2
0.69. fm

M Error

1 . 1.
r νM
rp 2

0.848.( fm)

0.857.( fm)
1

r πE

KS

rX

KX

178.( GeV)
.
1.11022310

0

0.034635
.
7.38826910

Error Av

r πM

0.879.( fm)

3

3

0.809916

0.160717

0.321692

0.247475

0.130911

M Error

0, 1

M Error

2, 1

2

λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
λB

13

0.075074

1.
M Error
0,0
12
+ M Error
2, 0

r πE

m tq .c

.
4.8425510

1.
π rπ

r νM

0
M Error =

(%)

M Error

0, 2

M Error

2, 2

M Error

1, 0

M Error

3,0

M Error

1,1

M Error

3, 1

M Error

1, 2

...

M Error

3, 2

Error Av = 0.149388 ( % )

232

www.deltagroupengineering.com

m. Particle summary matrix 3.2
2

. c .e
r e ω Ce

r π_1
r π_2

3


r ν_1

5

r π_av

3

r π_2

∆r π

r π_av

r π_1

2 r ν_1

r ν_2

∆r ν

r ν_av

r ν_1

1 .
r π_av

r π_Error

r π_2

r ν_Error

1 .
r ν_av
r ν_2

∆r π

rX KX

3 .b 1 . x

2

r π_Error

1

r π_1

r π_2

r ν_1

r ν_2

r π_av r ν_av

1

∆r π

∆K X

=

( 0.69 0.02) . fm

2

(%)

830.594743

826.944318

826.941624

830.648674

826.942971
.
1.34683810

( am)
3

2
0.005. fm

=

( 0.69 0.02) . fm

14

830.702606

0.053931

2
0.69. fm

1.

2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4
32.π ω CN

0

∆r ν

. 3 ( YHz)
ω Ω r π , m p = 2.61722210

π

.
2.22044610

1=

r ν_Error

∆r ν

2
6 .b 1 .K X . x

.

4 .ω CN

r π_1

1.

r ν_av

c .ω Ce

r ν_2

2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP

c .ω Ce

5

830.662386
12.03985

2

( am)

2
r X_av

r X_Error

1.

∆K X

rX KX

2

∆K X

rX KX

rX KX

∆r X_av

∆K X

∆r X_av

r X_av

rX KX

∆K X

1

r X_av

rX KX

∆K X

rX KX

∆K X

843.685579
807.144886

=

r X_av

825.415232

∆r X_av

18.270346

m γ = 5.746734 10

17 .

eV

r X_Error = 0 ( % )

( am)

m γγ
m gg

=

3.195095
6.39019

10

233

45 .

eV

www.deltagroupengineering.com

φ
1 . γγ
λ h φ gg

=

1.152898
1.521258

φ
1 . γγ
K λ .λ h φ gg

=

0.991785
1.308668

n. Particle summary matrix 3.3
The following is accurate to “1 or 2” decimal places (as implied by the results):
ω Ω r π, m p

ω Ω r ν ,mn

ω Ω r ν,mn

ω Ω r ε, m e

ω Ω r ε, m e

0.5

ω Ω r en , m en

0.5

2

ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L

1

4

ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L

1

6

ω Ω r µn , m µn

ω Ω r µ,mµ

8

3

ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L

8

ω Ω r µn , m µn

4

10

ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L

4

ω Ω r τ, m τ

12

ω Ω r τ, m τ

12

ω Ω r τn , m τn

ω Ω r en , m en

1

ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L

2

ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L
ω Ω r µ,mµ

ω Ω r τn , m τn
1
ω Ω r π, m p

.

ω Ω r uq , m uq

= 14

ω Ω r dq , m dq

14

1
ω Ω r ε, m e

.

ω Ω r uq , m uq

2

5
6
=

6
7
7

28

ω Ω r dq , m dq

42

ω Ω r cq , m cq

ω Ω r sq , m sq

56

ω Ω r bq , m bq

70

ω Ω r cq , m cq

28

84

ω Ω r bq , m bq

35

ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB

ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB

42

ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB

98
112

ω Ω r W,mW

ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB

126

56

ω Ω r Z, m Z

140

ω Ω r W,mW

63

ω Ω r Z, m Z

70

ω Ω r sq , m sq

ω Ω r H, m H

14
21

49

ω Ω r H, m H

ω Ω r tq , m tq

ω Ω r tq , m tq

234

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω Ω r ε,me

0.07

ω Ω r en , m en

0.07

ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L

0.14

ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L

0.14

1
14

0.29

1

ω Ω r µ,mµ

0.43

7

ω Ω r µn , m µn

0.57

0.07

1

0.57

0.07

ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L

7

0.71

2

0.86

7

0.86

3

1

7

1

4

2

7

3

4

ω Ω r cq , m cq

4

7

0.86

ω Ω r bq , m bq

5

5

0.86

ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB

6

ω Ω r τ,mτ
1

1
14

ω Ω r τn , m τn

.

=

ω Ω r uq , m uq

ω Ω r uq , m uq

ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq

8

ω Ω r W,mW

9

ω Ω r Z, m Z

10

0.14
0.29
= 0.43
0.57
0.57
0.71

7
6

7

ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB

0.14

7
6
7

ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq

o. Particle summary matrix 3.4
φ γγ
φ gg
r Bohr
rx

=

4.670757
6.163101

10

35 .

1 = 0.352379 ( % )

m

.
r x = 5.27319110

m γγ
m gg

=

11

( m)

3.195095
6.39019

10

235

φ
1 . γγ
K λ .λ h φ gg

=

0.991785
1.308668

45 .

eV

www.deltagroupengineering.com

me

11.807027

mp

.
5.10998910

830.702612

mn

0.938272

826.944318

0.939565

8.215954

r en

12.240673

m en

0.095379

r µn

0.105658
1.776989

0.655235

m µn

1.958664

m τn

r uq =

0.768186

m uq

r dq

1.013628

r τn

( am)

0.887904

r sq

1.091334

3 .10

9

1.9.10

4

0.0182
=

.
3.50490310

3

m dq

.
7.00980510

3

m sq

0.113909
1.182905

r cq

1.070961

m cq

r bq

0.92938

m bq
m tq

rW

1.061716

mW

91.1876

mZ

114.4

rH

c

2

4.11826

1.284033

rZ

GeV

178.440506

r tq

0.940438

4

80.425

mH
m L 2, r L

.
9.15554710

m L 3, r L

rL

=

r QB

10.754551
1.005287

0.056767

m L 5, r L

( am)

3

=

0.565476

m QB 5 , r QB

9.596205

m QB 6 , r QB

21.797922

GeV
c

2

. 3 1.32141 1.319591 11.734441 0.697721 ( fm)
λ Ce λ CP λ CN λ Cµ λ Cτ = 2.4263110
.
ω Ce ω CP ω CN ω Cµ ω Cτ = 7.76344110

1.
6

1.
6

r uq

m uq

r dq

r sq

m dq

r cq

m sq

r bq

m cq

4

1.425486 1.427451 0.160523 2.699721 ( YHz)

r tq = 0.960232 ( am)

m bq

m tq = 30.644349

GeV
c

2

p. Similarity equations
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M

φ 4C_S( r , ∆r , M )

K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M ) ln 2 .n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
γ
.
π .E rms .B rms
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M ) 1

Re acos SSE 3 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , r , ∆r , M

236

www.deltagroupengineering.com

φ 5C_S( r , ∆r , M )

Re asin SSE 3 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , r , ∆r , M
1

SSE 4 φ , DC_E, DC_B, E rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M

.SSE ( 1
3

DC_E) .E rms , ( 1

DC_B) .B rms , r , ∆r , M

.SSE ( 1
3

DC_E) .E rms, ( 1

DC_B) .B rms , r , ∆r , M

cos ( φ )

1

SSE 5 φ, DC_E, DC_B, E rms , B rms, r , ∆r , M

sin ( φ)

q. Calculation results
K PV R E, M M
K PV R E, 2 .M M

K PV R E, M E
K PV R E, 2 .M E

K PV R E, M J
K PV R E, 2 .M J

K 0 R E, M M

K 0 R E, M E

K 0 R E, M J

∆K 0 R E, M M

∆K 0 R E, M E

∆K 0 R E, M J

K EGM_N R E, M M

K EGM_N R E, M E

K EGM_N R E, M J

1

1

1.000001

K EGM_E R E, M M

K EGM_E R E, M E

K EGM_E R E, M J

1

1

1

=

1

1

1

1

1

1.000001

1

1

0.999999

.
8.55887110

12

.
6.96005110

K PV R E, M S
K PV R E, 2 .M S
3
K PV R E, M E .e

3
K PV R S , M S .e

∆K 0 R E , M E

∆K 0 R S , M S

ω PV 1 , R E, M M
ω PV 1 , R E, M E

K 0 R E, M E

= 1.000008

.
8.27226110
=

e

=1

∆K 0 R E , M E

0.035839

e

( Hz)

K 0 R S, M S

2.484128

T PV 1 , R E, M S

λ PV 1 , R E, M M

. 7
3.62406910

λ PV 1 , R E, M E

.
8.36497210

λ PV 1 , R E, M J
λ PV 1 , R E, M S

. 6
1.2259310
. 5
1.20683210

1.000927

K EGM_E R E, M S

1

4

120.885935
=

U m R E, M E
U m R E, M J
U m R E, M S

237

27.902544
4.089263

(s)

0.402556

U m R E, M M
( km)

.
2.31613510

K EGM_N R E, M S

T PV 1 , R E, M E

ω PV 1 , R E, M S

=

0.999305

= 1.000008

T PV 1 , R E, M J

6

=

∆K 0 R S , M S

0.244543

ω PV 1 , R E, M J

7

1.000927

∆K 0 R E, M S

T PV 1 , R E, M M

3

.
2.211110

1.000463

K 0 R E, M S

=1

10

6.080707
494.481475
=

. 5
1.57089110

( EPa)

. 8
1.64551410

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Ω R E, M M
Ω R E, M E
Ω R E, M J

=

. 29
2.83606210

n Ω R E, M M

. 29
1.73968910

n Ω R E, M E

. 28
9.17216810

n Ω R E, M J

. 28
4.2341410

n Ω R E, M S

Ω R E, M S
ω Ω R E, M M

519.573099
=

ω Ω R E, M J

. 3
1.86915710

ω Ω R E, M S

. 3
8.76512110

S m R E, M M

0.182295

S m R E, M E
S m R E, M J

( YHz)

14.824182
=

S m R E, M S

. 3
4.70941210

∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E

=

∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J

. 27
3.5284510
195.505363

∆ω PV R E, M E

519.573099
=

∆ω PV R E, M J

N ∆r R E, M E

YW

N ∆r R E, M J

2

cm

. 14
6.52135710
=

N ∆r R E, M S

1.729554

∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M

7.493187

∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E

( pHz)

51.128768

∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J

.
1.33585910

4

∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M

∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M E

.
5.02660110

5

∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E

.
1.39724710

5

∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M S

.
2.97920610

6

∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M M

13.105112

∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M J

∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M E
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M J

=

∆K C R E, ∆r , M M
∆K C R E, ∆r , M E
∆K C R E, ∆r , M J
∆K C R E, ∆r , M S

( ym )

∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J

13.105121

pm

∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E

13.105115

s

∆U PV R E, ∆r , M J

87.634109
. 4
2.78399910

. 16
2.9237310

7.577156
=

∆U PV R E, ∆r , M S

1.74894
0.256316

13.105101
=

13.10513

pm

13.105131

s

13.109717

2.860531
232.617621
=

. 7
7.74094810

ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J

. 7
2.9162510

( GPa)

4
7.3899.10

ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
( MPa .MΩ )

( m)

0.025237

∆U PV R E, ∆r , M M

1.077649
=

. 15
6.23483610

∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S

13.109693

∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M S

. 15
1.73310910

∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S

∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M M
=

( YHz)

. 3
1.86915710
. 3
8.76512110

N ∆r R E, M M

519.469801

∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S

. 27
7.64347410

∆ω PV R E, M S

. 6
4.93312710

∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M

. 28
1.44974110

=

∆ω PV R E, M M

195.505363

ω Ω R E, M E

. 28
2.36338510

ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S

123.501066
370.868276
=

. 3
1.56573710

( PHz)

. 3
8.90753610

KR2 = 99.99999999999999(%)

238

www.deltagroupengineering.com

∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M E

ω β R E, ∆r , M M , K R2

14.793206

ω β R E, ∆r , M E, K R2

=

ω β R E, ∆r , M J , K R2

∆n S R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
∆n S R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
∆n S R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
∆n S R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M M
=

∆ω R R E, ∆r , M J
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M S
St α R E, ∆r , M M

. 18
6.40202410

∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M J

. 18
3.58539910

∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M S

∆ω S R E, ∆r , M E, K R2

9.615565

∆ω S R E, ∆r , M J , K R2

11.66707

∆ω S R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
St β R E, ∆r , M M

.
2.78399910

St β R E, ∆r , M E
St β R E, ∆r , M J

.
2.9162510

7

St β R E, ∆r , M S

.
2.19383110

5

St δ R E, ∆r , M M

St γ R E, ∆r , M E

.
5.83032610

5

St δ R E, ∆r , M E

.
2.0974410

St γ R E, ∆r , M S

.
9.83425710

St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M J

=

St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
2.

G .M M
. 1
2
R E .c

1.
2

St δ R E, ∆r , M J

4

St δ R E, ∆r , M S

4

=1

=

( PHz)

. 3
8.90658910

3

0.011474

1
=

1
1
1

St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J , R E, ∆r , M J

1.000002

St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S , R E, ∆r , M S

e

. 3
1.56556910

.
2.01680710

1.000001

2

370.826434
=

4

1.000001

1.

( PHz)

123.486273

.
4.77711210

St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E

G .M E
. 1
2
R E .c

162.833549

4

St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M , R E, ∆r , M M

2.

45.263389

.
1.59080310

0.999999

2

. 14
6.84403710

763.476685

8.19356

St γ R E, ∆r , M M

St γ R E, ∆r , M J

=

∆ω S R E, ∆r , M M , K R2

( MPa .MΩ )

. 15
1.16748410

. 14
3.81125810

7.251258

4

=

=

17.031676

∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M E

.
1.034710

87.634109
=

. 15
1.78829110

∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M M

19

=

n β R E, ∆r , M M , K R2

n β R E, ∆r , M S , K R2

. 19
1.49277510

. 18
6.40270810
. 18
3.5857810

n β R E, ∆r , M J , K R2

1.077649

St α R E, ∆r , M S

e

167.366022

. 19
1.03481710

n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S

n β R E, ∆r , M E, K R2

( THz)

946.765196

ω β R E, ∆r , M S , K R2

∆ω R R E, ∆r , M E

41.841506

=

n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J

. 3
8.90753610

∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M S

St α R E, ∆r , M J

( PHz)

. 3
1.56573710

. 19
1.49295410

n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E

370.868276
=

∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M J

St α R E, ∆r , M E

n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M

123.501066

1.000001
=

1
1.000003
1

2

=1

239

www.deltagroupengineering.com

G .M J
. 1
2
R E .c

2.

e

1.
2

2.

2

= 1.000001

e

G .M S
. 1
2
R E .c

1.
2

2

= 1.000927

N X R M , ∆r , M M

. 17
2.15162910

E C R M , ∆r , M M

N X R E, ∆r , M E

. 17
2.29685210

E C R E, ∆r , M E

.
3.15778710

E C R J , ∆r , M J

N X R J , ∆r , M J

=

N X R S , ∆r , M S

. 17
3.76223110

B C R M , ∆r , M M
B C R E, ∆r , M E
B C R J , ∆r , M J

=

λ X R M , ∆r , M M

λ X R J , ∆r , M J

2

=

36.419294
97.406507

=

=

N C R J , ∆r , M J
N C R S , ∆r , M S

ln 2 .N X R E, ∆r , M E

γ

ln 2 .N C R E, ∆r , M E

ln 2 .N X R J , ∆r , M J

γ

ln 2 .N C R J , ∆r , M J

ln 2 .N X R S , ∆r , M S

γ

ln 2 .N C R S , ∆r , M S

8.231693
3.077746

( PHz)

. 12
3.20180310

N C R E, ∆r , M E

γ

m

1.791481

N C R M , ∆r , M M

167.343325

volt

23.079214

10.073108

ω X R S , ∆r , M S

( nm )

190.811924
7.220558

ω X R J , ∆r , M J

ln 2 .N C R M , ∆r , M M

1.

2

( mgs )

γ

2

1.

6.364801

ω X R E, ∆r , M E

ln 2 .N X R M , ∆r , M M

1.

2

ω X R M , ∆r , M M

29.761666

λ X R S , ∆r , M S
1.

9.8181
0.76984

=

E C R S , ∆r , M S

0.240852

B C R S , ∆r , M S

λ X R E, ∆r , M E

17

294.339224

. 12
4.18248610
. 13
1.53794510
. 13
3.14792110

1 . N X R M , ∆r , M M
ln
2
N C R M , ∆r , M M

γ

γ

γ

1 . N X R E, ∆r , M E
ln
2
N C R E, ∆r , M E

5.557718 5.557718
=

1 . N X R J , ∆r , M J
ln
2
N C R J , ∆r , M J

5.45678 5.45678
4.964882 4.964882
4.694305 4.694305

1 . N X R S , ∆r , M S
ln
2
N C R S , ∆r , M S

N T 1 , 2 , N C R M , ∆r , M M

N T 1 , 2 , N C R J , ∆r , M J

. 12 7.68972610
. 12
1.60090210

N T 1 , 2 , N X R M , ∆r , M M

N T 1 , 2 , N X R J , ∆r , M J

. 17 1.57889410
. 17
1.07581410

N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R M , ∆r , M M

N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R J , ∆r , M J

N T 1 , 2 , N C R E, ∆r , M E

N T 1 , 2 , N C R S , ∆r , M S

N T 1 , 2 , N X R E, ∆r , M E

N T 1 , 2 , N X R S , ∆r , M S

. 17 1.88111510
. 17
1.14842610

N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E

N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R S , ∆r , M S

. 18 8.57004510
. 18
5.17408410

N TR 1 , 1 , R M , ∆r , M M
N TR 1 , 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
N TR 1 , 1 , R J , ∆r , M J
N TR 1 , 1 , R S , ∆r , M S

=

=

. 18 7.16489910
. 18
4.83975610
. 12 1.57396110
. 13
2.09124310

. 4
6.72005410

Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R M , ∆r , M M

. 4
5.49159510

Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E

. 4
2.05325110

Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R J , ∆r , M J

. 4
1.19514810

Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R S , ∆r , M S

240

. 37
9.36929710
=

. 38
1.07084610
. 38
2.05343110
. 38
2.93782710

www.deltagroupengineering.com

F PP R M , ∆r
A PP R M

Σ HR 1 , 2 , R M , ∆r , M M

. 9
4.51591310

F PP R E, ∆r

Σ HR 1 , 2 , R E, ∆r , M E

. 9
3.01576110

A PP R E

.
4.21583910

F PP R J , ∆r

. 8
1.42837810

A PP R J

=

Σ HR 1 , 2 , R J , ∆r , M J
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R S , ∆r , M S

8

1.300126
=

1.300126

( fPa )

1.300126
1.300126

F PP R S , ∆r
A PP R S
F PV R M , ∆r , M M

F PP R M , ∆r

A PP R M

F PV R M , ∆r , M M

F PV R E, ∆r , M E

2.349179

F PP R E, ∆r

A PP R E

1.300007

F PV R E, ∆r , M E

=

F PV R J , ∆r , M J

0.074224

( fPa )

F PP R J , ∆r

0.015617

A PP R J

F PV R J , ∆r , M J

F PV R S , ∆r , M S

F PP R S , ∆r

A PP R S

F PV R S , ∆r , M S

∆Λ R M , ∆r , M M
∆Λ R E, ∆r , M E
∆Λ R J , ∆r , M J

=

44.65616

1
=
1

1.447168

St ∆Λ R E, ∆r , M E

0.029107

15 .

2

Hz

. 3
1.65163110

St ∆Λ R J , ∆r , M J

3

(%)

1

St ∆Λ R M , ∆r , M M
10

. 3
9.15864310

. 3
8.22480110

3.225809

.
3.39437710

∆Λ R S , ∆r , M S

1

3.225809
=

St ∆Λ R S , ∆r , M S

1.447168
10

0.029107
.
3.39437710

15 .

2

Hz

3

ω PV 1 , R M , M M
∆ω δr 1 , R M , ∆r , M M
Λ R R M , ∆r , M M
Λ R R E, ∆r , M E
Λ R R J , ∆r , M J
Λ R R S , ∆r , M S

=

1

ω PV 1 , R E, M E

1

∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E

1

ω PV 1 , R J , M J

1

∆ω δr 1 , R J , ∆r , M J

9
1.3035.10

=

. 9
4.78288210
. 10
5.36192210
. 11
5.22005110

ω PV 1 , R S , M S
∆ω δr 1 , R S , ∆r , M S

241

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2
U m R M, M M
3 .
2
∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
2
U m R E, M E
3 .
2
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E

9
1.3035.10

=

2
U m R J, M J
3 .
2
∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J

. 9
4.78288510
. 10
5.361910
. 11
5.21985810

2
U m R S, M S
3 .
2
∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S

∆ω δr_Error R M , ∆r , M M

∆ω δr_Error R E, ∆r , M E

∆ω δr_Error R J , ∆r , M J

∆ω δr_Error R S , ∆r , M S

∆ω δr_Error R WD , ∆r , M WD

∆ω δr_Error R RG, ∆r , M RG

∆ω δr_Error R NS, ∆r , M NS

∆ω δr_Error R BH, ∆r , M BH

.
2.45448210
=

7

.
4.09314210

4

.
6.56319310

5

.
3.69917510

3

0.023754

0.195216

5.248215

27.272806

∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M

∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E

3.225809

1.447169

∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J

∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S

0.029107

. 3
3.39425210

∆Λ EGM R WD , ∆r , M WD

∆Λ EGM R RG, ∆r , M RG

∆Λ EGM R NS , ∆r , M NS

∆Λ EGM R BH, ∆r , M BH

∆Λ Error R M , ∆r , M M

∆Λ Error R E, ∆r , M E

∆Λ Error R J , ∆r , M J

∆Λ Error R S , ∆r , M S

∆Λ Error R WD , ∆r , M WD

∆Λ Error R RG, ∆r , M RG

∆Λ Error R NS , ∆r , M NS

∆Λ Error R BH, ∆r , M BH

K P R M , ∆r , M M
K P R E, ∆r , M E
K P R J , ∆r , M J
K P R S , ∆r , M S

=

. 6
2.30813410
. 15
5.25385210

=

.
8.47616310

12

(%)

10

15 .

2

Hz

. 9
1.42948610

.
2.45448210

7

.
6.56319310

5

.
4.09314210

4

.
3.69917510

3

0.023754

0.195216

5.248215

27.272806

(%)

265.650431
480.043646
=

. 3
8.40786210
. 4
3.99605210

2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
.
3
U m R M,M M
RM
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
.
3
U m R J, M J
RJ

3.225809
=

1.447168
10

0.029107
.
3.39437710

15 .

2

Hz

3

2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS

242

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

2 .G.M M .

1
∆r

RM

3

RM

1

2 .G.M E.

1
∆r

RE

3

RJ

1
∆r

3

∆r

3

RJ

1

2 .G.M S .
RS

3.225809
3

RE

1

2 .G.M J .

3

1.447168

=

3

.
3.39437710

15 .

10

0.029107

2

Hz

3

1
3

RS

2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
M
3
U
R
,
M
RM
m M
M
R M ∆r
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
E
3
U m R E, M E
RE
R E ∆r
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
J
3
U
R
,
M
RJ
m J
J
R J ∆r

3

3

3

RJ

3

1

1

∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E . 2 .G.M E.

3

1

∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J . 2 .G.M J .

∆r

RJ

3

1

∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S . 2 .G.M S .
RS

3

0

1

1

1
1

1
=
1

.
2.45448210

7

.
6.56319710

5

.
4.09312510

4

.
3.69903810

3

(%)

1

1

1

1
3

1
3

RE

=

1

1
3

RJ

.
2.45448210

7

.
6.56319710

5

.
4.09312510

4

.
3.69903810

3

(%)

1

1
∆r

(%)

3

1

1

0

1

1

RM
1

∆r

RE

1
3

0

RS

1
3

0
=

1

1

2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS

∆r

1

1

2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
.
∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J .
3
U m R J, M J
RJ

RM

1
3

2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE

∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M . 2 .G.M M .

3

RE

2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
.
∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M .
3
U m R M,M M
RM

∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S .

1

RM
1

2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
S
3
U m R S, M S
RS
R S ∆r

∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E .

1

1

1
3

RS

243

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5

λ CP
c .m e

5

27.m e

.

4

.

K PV r p , m p .m p

3
128.G.π .h

2

8 .π

3

λ CN

5

2
16.π .λ Ce

c .ω Ce

5

λ Ce m p λ Ce m n
λ CP m e λ CN m e

r ν λ CN ω CP m p
r π λ CP ω CN m n

.

830.594743

.

3

2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4
32.π ω CN
5

.

2
3
16.c .π .m n

826.941624
= 826.941624 ( am)
826.941624

2
4
27.m h m e
.
mn
4 .π

= ( 0.315205 0.315205 0.315205) ( % )

St θ r ν , m n

. 5 1.8360210
. 3 1.8386810
. 3
= 3.21927910

ω PV 1 , r e , m e

ω PV 1 , r π , m p

ω PV 1 , r ν , m n

ω Ω r e, m e

ω Ω r π, m p

ω Ω r ν ,mn

ω PV 1 , r π , m p

ω Ω r π, m p

ω PV 1 , r e , m e

ω Ω r e, m e

ω PV 1 , r ν , m p

ω Ω r ν ,mn

ω PV 1 , r e , m e

ω Ω r e, m e

=

ω Ω r ν ,mn

ω PV 1 , r e , m e

ω PV 1 , r ν , m p

ω PV 1 , r ν , m n

2 .π .c .

λ Ce
2

λ CP

0.568793

35.500829

.
2.49926810

.
2.61722210

17

18

35.73252
. 18
2.62462610

( GHz)

62.792864 10.50158

ω Ω r π, m p

2

=

62.414364 10.471952

ω Ω r e,m e

ω Ce

5

h .m e

St η r π , m p

ω CP

2
4
4 .π .λ h λ Ce

4 .ω CN

830.594743

λ
. CN

= ( 0.995476 0.998623 0.998623 0.998623)

r π λ CN ω CP m p

ω Ω r π, m p

c .ω Ce

= 830.594743 ( am)

27

. 3 1.83615310
. 3 1.83868410
. 3 1.83868410
. 3
= 1.83615310

λ CP ω CN m n

St ζ r e , m e

5

.

2
16.π .λ Ce

2
4
27.m h m e
.
mp
4 .π

2
3
16.c .π .m p

( am)

4
2
K PV r n , m n .m n
3

2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP

1

λ CN

.

2
4
4 .π .λ h λ Ce

.

826.941624

λ CN

5

h .m e

830.594743

=

4

λ
. CP

27

.

4
2
K PV r p , m p .m p
5

K PV r n , m n .m n
λ CP

4

λ CP

.

ω CP.

mp

. 17 7.32784510
. 16 7.34520410
. 16
= 4.39398910

. 3 2.6174110
. 3 2.6174110
. 3 2.6174110
. 3 ( YHz)
= 2.61722210

me

244

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2

ω CN

ω Ω r ν,mn

ω Ce

2 .π .c .

λ Ce

mn
ω CN.
me

2

λ CN

2

ω Ω r ε, m e
2 .ω Ω r π , m p

. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 ( YHz)
= 2.62462610

2

ω
. CP
ω Ω r π , m p ω Ce

ω
. CN
ω Ω r ν , m n ω Ce
1

1

= ( 99.985611 100.007215 100.000181) ( % )

m L 1, r ε

m L 2, r L

m L 3, r L

m L 4, r µ

m L 5, r L

m L 6, r τ

m L 7, r L

m L 8, r L

m L 9, r L

m L 10, r L

m L 11, r L

m L 12, r L

m L 13, r L

m L 14, r L

m L 15, r L

m L 16, r L

m L 17, r L

m L 18, r L

m L 19, r L

m L 20, r L

. 5 1.80208610
. 5 2.29847910
. 5 2.89523810
. 5
1.3933810

m L 21, r L

m L 22, r L

m L 23, r L

m L 24, r L

. 5 4.44581510
. 5 5.4303110
. 5 6.57657710
. 5
3.60608710

0.510999

=

9.155547

56.766874

105.677748

. 3 2.5703410
. 3
565.476231 1.77526210

. 3
4.6876410

. 3 1.27952710
. 4 1.96479110
. 4 2.90646410
. 4
7.96417210

MeV

.
.
.
.
4.16672110
5.81601510
7.93341210
1.06069210

c

4

4

4

5

m QB 1 , r dq

m QB 2 , r sq

m QB 3 , r cq

m QB 4 , r bq

.
7.00980510

m QB 5 , r QB

m QB 6 , r QB

m QB 7 , r W

m QB 8 , r Z

9.596205

21.797922

80.425

91.1876

m QB 9 , r H

m QB 10, r tq

m QB 11, r QB

m QB 12, r QB

114.4

178.440506

333.427609

493.23068

m QB 13, r QB

m QB 14, r QB

m QB 15, r QB

m QB 16, r QB

707.097922

986.98519

. 3 1.80000810
. 3
1.3463110

=

3

0.113909

1.182905

4.11826

m QB 17, r QB

m QB 18, r QB

m QB 19, r QB

m QB 20, r QB

.
2.36458310

m QB 21, r QB

m QB 22, r QB

m QB 23, r QB

m QB 24, r QB

. 3 7.54460610
. 3 9.21530610
. 3 1.11605410
. 4
6.11957610

∆U PV R E, ∆r , M M
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M J
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M S

3

.
.
3.05816410
3.90054810
3

2

3

GeV
c

2

.
4.91325710

3

2.860531
232.617621
=

4
7.3899.10

( GPa)

. 7
7.74094810

The following two result sets are accurate to “13” decimal places:
1

.

ω Ω r uq , m uq

1
ω Ω r ε, m e

.

ω Ω r dq , m dq

ω Ω r sq , m sq

ω Ω r cq , m cq

ω Ω r bq , m bq

ω Ω r W,mW

ω Ω r Z, m Z

ω Ω r H, m H

ω Ω r tq , m tq

ω Ω r dq , m dq

ω Ω r sq , m sq

ω Ω r cq , m cq

ω Ω r bq , m bq

ω Ω r W,mW

ω Ω r Z, m Z

ω Ω r H, m H

ω Ω r tq , m tq

=

=

1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10

7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70

r. Resonant Casimir cavity design specifications (experimental)
Given
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M E

∆r

Find( ∆r )

1

∆r = 16.518377( mm)

ω X R E, ∆r , M E = 16.340851 ( PHz)

245

www.deltagroupengineering.com

E C R E, ∆r , M E = 550.422869

V
m

B C R E, ∆r , M E = 18.360131 ( mgs )

SSE 4 0 .( deg ) , 0 .( % ) , 0 .( % ) , E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
SSE 5 90.( deg ) , 0 .( % ) , 0 .( % ) , E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E

=

1
1

NOTES

246

www.deltagroupengineering.com

MathCad 12: High precision calculation results
a. Computational environment

NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED
The high precision calculation results are obtained via the “MathCad 12” computational
environment utilising the calculation engine defined in the preceding section.


Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 10-14.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 10-14.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
b. Particle summary matrix 3.1







rπE +



( 2)

0.69⋅ fm

rπM
1
2

⋅ ( rνM − rν )

rνM

830.647087 830.662386
 
 848.579832 848 


0.857⋅ ( fm)   849.993668
857

 ( am)
=


874.643564
875
rp

 826.889045 825.617615

rX
  879.016508 879 

0.879⋅ ( fm) 
0.848⋅ ( fm)

rπE

( )

 KX   −0.113  2
  =
 fm
 KS   −0.113348
2



 ⋅e 3
 rπ




 rε ⋅ e rτ
 rν

 rε
 rπ − rν












mtq = 178.470327

GeV
 2 
 c 

 λA( Kω ⋅ rBohr , mp )   657.329013

=
 ( nm)
λB

  656.469624

 7.297353× 10− 3 


=
−3
7.297353× 10


 3.141593 




2


r
r
r
r
1 ε
1 ε
1
ε

3
τ

⋅ ⋅e
⋅ ⋅e



α rπ
α rν
π rπ − rν



rπE
rπM




0.848⋅ ( fm)
0.857⋅ ( fm)
2
0.69⋅ fm
M Error := 
−1
1 1

r
K
ν
S
 ⋅  ⋅ ( rνM − rν ) + rπE

rX
KX

 rp  2



2
rνM
mtq ⋅ c
λA ( Kω ⋅ rBohr , mp ) 



0.879⋅ ( fm)
178⋅ ( GeV)
λB

( )

247

www.deltagroupengineering.com

− 14
− 13 

0
2.220446× 10
1.110223× 10


 −1.841834× 10− 3

0.068376
−0.817542
M Error = 
 ( %)
−0.040736
0.153997
0.308232




−3
0.264229
0.130911
 1.87806× 10

1

ErrorAv :=

12

⋅  MError

0, 0

+ M Error

0,1

+ MError

0, 2

+ M Error

1,0

+ MError

+ M Error

1, 1

1,2

...

+ M
Error2 , 0 + MError2 , 1 + M Error2 , 2 + MError3 , 0 + M Error3 , 1 + MError3 , 2



ErrorAv = 0.148979(%)
c. Particle summary matrix 3.2
2



rε c
3


⋅e
re ωCe
 rπ_1  

 := 
5
2
4
 rπ_2  
c⋅ ωCe
27⋅ ωh ωCe



 4⋅ ω 3 32⋅ π4 ωCP
 CP

 ∆rπ

 rπ_Error 

 rπ_av − rπ_1



rν_2

rν_av 

∆rν 
rπ_2




rπ −
π

 rν_1  
5

 :=
2
4

r
ν_2

27⋅ ωh ωCe
c
ω


Ce



 4⋅ ωCN3 32⋅ π4 ωCN

 1 ⋅ (r

r
π_av + ∆rπ ) 
π_2


 := 


1
 rν_Error 
 rν_2 ⋅ ( rν_av + ∆rν ) 




 := 

 ∆rν   rν_av − rν_1 

 rπ_1

 rν_1
 rπ_av

 ∆rπ









 830.647081 830.594743
826.889045 826.941624
=
( am)
 830.620912 826.915335
 −0.026169 0.02629 

rX ( KX ) :=








 rπ_av  1  rπ_1 + rπ_2 

 := ⋅ 

 rν_av  2  rν_1 + rν_2 

 rπ_Error 
0

 − 1 =   ( %)
0
 rν_Error 

(2 )
2
3⋅ b 1⋅ ( x − 1)

−6⋅ b 1⋅ KX ⋅ x − 1

( 2)

ωΩ ( rπ , mp ) = 2.617319× 10 ( YHz)
3

∆KX := 0.005⋅ fm

( )

2


0.69⋅ fm

  830.662386
=
1 
 ( am)
2
2  
 ⋅  ( 0.69 + 0.02) ⋅ fm − ( 0.69 − 0.02) ⋅ fm    12.03985 
2

( )

rX_av :=

1
2

( (

( )

)

(

⋅ rX KX − ∆KX + rX KX + ∆KX

rX_Error :=

(

)

rX KX − ∆KX − ∆rX_av
rX_av

−1

))

(

∆rX_av := rX_av − rX KX + ∆KX

)

 rX( KX − ∆KX)   843.685786
 rX( KX + ∆KX)   807.145085

 ( am)

=


825.415435
rX_av


 18.270351 

 

∆rX_av

248

www.deltagroupengineering.com

− 14

rX_Error = 2.220446× 10

 φγγ   1.152898
=

λh  φgg   1.521258
1

⋅

(

− 17

mγ = 5.746734 10

( %)

)

⋅ eV

(

)

 mγγ   3.195095 − 45

 =
 10 ⋅ eV
 mgg   6.39019 

 φγγ   0.991785
=

Kλ ⋅ λh  φgg   1.308668
1

⋅

d. Particle summary matrix 3.3
The following is accurate to “1 or 2” decimal places (as implied by the results):
ωΩ ( rν , mn)




ωΩ ( rε , me)




ωΩ ( ren , men)


 ωΩ ( rL , mL( 2 , rL)) 


 ωΩ ( rL , mL( 3 , rL)) 


ωΩ ( rµ , mµ )


ωΩ ( rµn , mµn)


 ω ( r , m ( 5, r )) 
Ω L L
L




ωΩ ( rτ , mτ )


ωΩ ( rτn , mτn)


1


ω
r
,
m

Ω ( uq uq)

ωΩ ( rπ , mp ) 
ωΩ ( rdq , mdq)




ωΩ ( rsq , msq )




ωΩ ( rcq , mcq)


ωΩ ( rbq , mbq)


 ω (r , m (5 , r ) ) 
 Ω QB QB QB 
 ωΩ (rQB , mQB(6 , rQB) ) 


ωΩ ( rW , mW)




ωΩ ( rZ , mZ )


ωΩ ( rH , mH )




ωΩ ( rtq , mtq )

ωΩ ( rπ , mp )




ωΩ ( rν , mn)




ωΩ ( rε , me)




ωΩ ( ren , men)


 ωΩ ( rL , mL( 2, rL) ) 
 ω (r , m (3, r ) ) 
Ω L L
L


ωΩ ( rµ , mµ )




ωΩ ( rµn , mµn)


 ωΩ ( rL , mL( 5, rL) ) 


ωΩ ( rτ , mτ )




ωΩ ( rτn , mτn)
1




ωΩ ( rε , me) 
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)


ωΩ ( rdq , mdq)




ωΩ ( rsq , msq)


ωΩ ( rcq , mcq)




ωΩ ( rbq , mbq)


 ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 5, rQB) ) 


 ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 6, rQB) ) 


ωΩ ( rW , mW)




ωΩ ( rZ , mZ )


ωΩ ( rH , mH)




ωΩ ( rtq , mtq )

 1 
 2 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 6 
 8 
 8 
 
 10 
 12 
 12 
 
=  14 
 14 
 
 28 
 42 
 56 
 
 70 
 84 
 98 
 
 112 
 126 
 
 140 

249

 0.5 
 0.5 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 
6 
=
 7 
 7 
 
 14 
 21 
 
 28 
 35 
 42 
 
 49 
 56 
 63 
 
 70 

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ωΩ ( rπ , mp )




ωΩ ( rν , mn)




ωΩ ( rε , me)




ωΩ ( ren , men)


 ωΩ ( rL , mL( 2, rL) ) 
 ω (r , m ( 3, r )) 
Ω L L
L



ωΩ ( rµ , mµ )



ωΩ ( rµn , mµn)


 ωΩ ( rL , mL( 5, rL) ) 


ωΩ ( rτ , mτ )




ωΩ ( rτn , mτn)
1




ωΩ ( ruq , muq) 
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)


ωΩ ( rdq , mdq)




ωΩ ( rsq , msq )




ωΩ ( rcq , mcq)


ωΩ ( rbq , mbq)


 ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 5, rQB) ) 


 ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 6, rQB) ) 


ωΩ ( rW , mW)




ωΩ ( rZ , mZ )


ωΩ ( rH , mH)




ωΩ ( rtq , mtq )

 0.07 
 0.07 


 0.14 
 0.14 
 0.29 


 0.43 
 0.57 


 0.57 
 0.71 
 0.86 


0.86 

=
 1 
 1 


 2 
 3 


 4 
 5 
 6 


 7 
 8 
 9 


 10 

e. Particle summary matrix 3.4
 rε 
 
 rπ   11.806238 
 r   830.647087
 ν  

 rµ   826.889045
   8.214055 
 rτ 
12.237844 
 ren  

0.095379 
 
 rµn   0.655235 

 rτn  

1.958664 
 
 ruq  =  0.768186  ( am)
 r   1.013628 


 dq  

 rsq   0.887904 
 r   1.091334 
 cq   1.070961 
 rbq  

   0.92938 
r
tq
   1.283947 
 rW 
   1.061645 
 rZ   0.940375 
r 
 H

 me  

  5.109989× 10− 4 
 mp   0.938272 
m  

 n   0.939565 
 mµ   0.105658 

 

1.776989
 mτ 


 men 
−9

3 × 10



 mµn   1.9 × 10− 4 

 mτn  


0.0182


  GeV
 muq  = 
−3 

 m   3.505488× 10   c2 


dq

  7.010977× 10− 3 
 msq  

 m   0.113928 
cq

  1.183102 
 mbq  


  4.118949 
m
tq

  178.470327 
 mW 
80.425


 


91.1876
m
Z




m  
114.4

 H

250

(

)

 φγγ   4.670757 − 35
 =
 10 ⋅ m
 φgg   6.163101

www.deltagroupengineering.com

− 11

rx = 5.273191× 10

 φγγ   0.991785
=

Kλ ⋅ λh  φgg   1.308668
1

( m)

(

⋅

)

 mγγ   3.195095 − 45
 rL   10.752712

=
 10 ⋅ eV 
 =
 ( am)
 mgg   6.39019 
 rQB   1.005262 

1
6
1
6

rBohr

− 1 = 0.352379( %)

rx

 mL( 2 , rL) 


 mL( 3 , rL) 
 m (5, r ) 
 L L 
 mQB( 5 , rQB) 
 m (6, r ) 
 QB QB 

 9.153163× 10− 3 
 0.056752 
  GeV
=
 0.565329   2 
 9.597226   c 
 21.800242 

⋅ ( ruq + rdq + rsq + rcq + rbq + rtq ) = 0.960232( am)
⋅ ( muq + mdq + msq + mcq + mbq + mtq ) = 30.649471

GeV
 2 
 c 

The following two result sets are accurate to “13” decimal places:
1
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)

 ωΩ ( rdq , mdq) ωΩ ( rsq , msq) ωΩ ( rcq , mcq) ωΩ ( rbq , mbq) 

 ωΩ ( rW , mW) ωΩ ( rZ , mZ ) ωΩ ( rH , mH) ωΩ ( rtq , mtq ) 

⋅

1 2 3 4 

 7 8 9 10 

=

 ωΩ ( rdq , mdq) ωΩ ( rsq , msq) ωΩ ( rcq , mcq) ωΩ ( rbq , mbq)   7 14 21 28 
=

ωΩ ( rε , me)  ωΩ ( rW , mW) ωΩ ( rZ , mZ ) ωΩ ( rH , mH) ωΩ ( rtq , mtq )   49 56 63 70 
1

⋅

NOTES

251

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

252

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quinta Essentia – Part 4

MathCad 8 Professional
a. Complete simulation
i. Computational environment

NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED


Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
ii. Units of measure (definitions)

Jy

10

W

26 .

pc

2.

. 16 .( m)
3.085677580710

m Hz

( mJy µJy nJy pJy fJy aJy zJy yJy )

Scale 1 .( Jy )

( mpc µpc npc ppc fpc apc zpc ypc )

Scale 1 .( pc )

( kJy MJy GJy TJy PJy EJy ZJy YJy )

Scale 2 .( Jy )

( kpc Mpc Gpc Tpc Ppc Epc Zpc Ypc )

Scale 2 .( pc )

iii. Constants (definitions)
σ

. 8.
5.67040010

W

κ

2. 4

.
1.380650510

Th

J
K

m K

m h .c

23 .

KW

. 3 .( m.K )
2.897768510

2

κ

iv. Astronomical statistics
Lyr

∆T 0

c .yr

D E2M

0.001.( K )

8
3.844.10 .( m)

Ro

8 .( kpc )

AU

∆R o

149597870660.( m) H 0

0.5.( kpc )

MG

71.

km
.
s Mpc

T0

2.725.( K )

11
6 .10 .M S

v. Characterisation of the gravitational spectrum
1. “Ω → Ω1, nΩ → nΩ_1, ωΩ → ωΩ_1”
Note: “the complete simulation” is the computational algorithm developed for this text and is
predominantly without comment.
253

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Commencing with the following relationship set, significant simplifications to primary
EGM equations may be derived as follows,
4
h .
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3
2 .c

U ω( r , M )

c .U ω n PV, r , M

S ω n PV, r , M

U ω( r , M ) .

U ω n PV, r , M

U m( r , M )

3 .M .c

n PV

2

4

4

n PV

2

4 .π .r

3

3

Ω ( r, M )

108.

U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )

2

U m( r , M )

12. 768 81.

n Ω ( r, M )

U ω( r , M )

Ω ( r, M )

4

12

Ω ( r, M )

1

Hence,
3 .M .c
U m( r , M )

2

4 .π .r

3 .M .c

3

U ω( r , M )

5

4
3
h .
4
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) 2 .π .r .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3
2 .c

U m( r , M )

108.

3

Ω 1( r , M ) 6 .

>> 768”, hence simplifying / approximating forms yields,

U ω( r , M )

3

Ω 1( r , M )

2

U m( r , M )

Typically: “ 81.

108.

U ω( r , M )

U m( r , M )

3 .M .c

6.

U ω( r , M )

216.

U ω( r , M )

3

U m( r , M )

3

U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )

Ω 1( r , M )

4
3
2 .π .r .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

3

6 .c

5

r .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

.

3 .M .c

2

2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

Typically: “ Ω ( r , M ) >> 1” hence,
3

n Ω_1( r , M )

Ω 1( r , M ) 1 U m( r , M )
.

C Ω_1( r , M )

12

G.M .
2

r

ω Ω_1( r , M )

3

c

U ω( r , M ) 2 .r .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

2

.

3 .M .c

2

2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

n Ω_1( r , M )

Ω 1( r , M )
12

3

2

ω Ω_1( r , M ) n Ω_1( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

π .n Ω_1( r , M )

n Ω_1( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

T Ω_1( r , M )

1
ω Ω_1( r , M )

2
c .
3 .M .c
2 .r 2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

λ Ω_1( r , M )

c
ω Ω_1( r , M )

Checking errors yields,
Ω 1 R M,M M

Ω 1 R E, M E

Ω R M, M M

Ω R E, M E

Ω 1 R J, M J

Ω 1 R S, M S

Ω R J, M J

Ω R S, M S

1=

. 14 4.44089210
.
6.66133810

14

. 14 6.66133810
.
4.44089210

14

254

(%)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Ω 1 R NS , M NS

1 = 0 (%)

Ω R NS , M NS

n Ω_1 R M , M M

n Ω_1 R E, M E

n Ω R M,M M

n Ω R E, M E

n Ω_1 R J , M J

n Ω_1 R S , M S

n Ω R J, M J

n Ω R S, M S

n Ω_1 R NS , M NS
n Ω R NS , M NS

ω Ω_1 R E, M E

ω Ω R M,M M

ω Ω R E, M E

ω Ω_1 R J , M J

ω Ω_1 R S , M S

ω Ω R J, M J

ω Ω R S, M S

ω Ω R NS , M NS

T Ω_1 R E, M E

T Ω R M,M M

T Ω R E, M E

T Ω_1 R J , M J

T Ω_1 R S , M S

T Ω R J, M J

T Ω R S, M S

T Ω R NS, M NS

λ Ω_1 R E, M E

λ Ω R M,M M

λ Ω R E, M E

λ Ω_1 R J , M J

λ Ω_1 R S , M S

λ Ω R J, M J

λ Ω R S, M S

λ Ω R NS , M NS

.
2.22044610

14

.
4.44089210

14

.
8.88178410

14

(%)

1=

.
6.66133810

14

.
2.22044610

14

.
6.66133810

14

.
8.88178410

14

(%)

1=

.
7.77156110

14

.
2.22044610

14

.
5.55111510

14

.
7.77156110

14

.
7.77156110

14

.
2.22044610

14

.
6.66133810

14

.
7.77156110

14

(%)

1 = 0 ( %)

λ Ω_1 R M , M M

λ Ω_1 R NS , M NS

14

1 = 0 (%)

T Ω_1 R M , M M

T Ω_1 R NS, M NS

.
6.66133810

1 = 0 (%)

ω Ω_1 R M , M M

ω Ω_1 R NS , M NS

1=

1=

(%)

1 = 0 (%)

2. “g → ωΩ”
i. “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_2”
3

ω Ω_1( r , M )

2
c .
3 .M .c
2 .r 2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

ω Ω_1( r , M )

255

3

3
2
c .
3 .M .c
2 .r 2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω PV( 1 , r , M )

. 3
. .
. 2r . 2πh
3
2
c
3 .M .c
ω Ω_1( r , M )
1

16.π .h .
r
5
3 .M .c ω Ω_1( r , M )

3

ω Ω_2( r , M )

th

9

9
2
c . 3 .M .c .
1
.
3
2r
2 .π .h
ω PV( 1 , r , M )

G.h
c

ωh

5

th

2

c
G.h

3 14
2
3 .c .M

4
3 2
2
3 .G .M .ω h .c

13 5 2 3
2 .r .π .h .G

2
13 5 2
2 .r .π .λ h

ω Ω_2( r , M )

g( r , M )

9

6
3
3 .ω h
.
. GM
2
13 . 2 . .
2 π rc r

G.M

mh

2

St g

9

r

λh

G

5
3
3 .ω h
.
. GM
13
5
π
2 .λ h .r

ω Ω_2( r , M )

2

h .c

5

1

2

9
2
c . 3 .M .c
2 .r
2 .π .h

2

3

3

G.h
c

λh

2

r

6
3
3 .ω h

13 5 2 3
2 .r .π .h .G

3

1

3

5
3
3 .ω h .G.M G.M
.
2 3
13
2 .λ h .π .r

3 14
2
3 .c .M

1
.
1 . 2 c .G.M
3
π .r
r

.

2

c
G.h

G
λh

6
3
3 .ω h
.
. GM
2
13 2
2 .π .r .c r

c
2

3

h

2

245

10

St g = 1.828935

13 2
2 .π .c

1.
2
St g .g ( r , M )
r

ω Ω_2( r , M )

9

5
m.s

St g

.g ( r , M ) 2

r

Checking errors yields,
ω Ω_2 R M , M M

ω Ω_2 R E, M E

ω Ω_1 R M , M M

ω Ω_1 R E, M E

ω Ω_2 R J , M J

ω Ω_2 R S , M S

ω Ω_1 R J , M J

ω Ω_1 R S , M S

ω Ω_2 R NS , M NS

1=

.
1.04678510

9

.
2.32001510

8

.
6.57443310

7

.
7.07196310

5

(%)

1 = 2.491576 ( % )

ω Ω_1 R NS , M NS

Therefore,
a EGM_ωΩ( r , M )

r .
9
ω Ω_2( r , M )

St g

a EGM_ωΩ R E, M E = 9.809009

m
s

2

Checking errors yields,
a EGM_ωΩ R M , M M

a EGM_ωΩ R E, M E

g R M,M M

g R E, M E

a EGM_ωΩ R J , M J

a EGM_ωΩ R S , M S

g R J, M J

g R S, M S

1=

.
1.49880110

12

.
1.49880110

12

.
1.5432110

12

.
1.57651710

12

256

(%)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

a EGM_ωΩ R NS , M NS

.
1 = 1.65423210

g R NS, M NS

12

(%)

ii. “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_3”
3

3

1 U m( r , M ) .
1
ω Ω_1( r , M ) .
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .
2 U ω( r , M )
2

ω Ω_1( r , M )

U m( r , M )
4
h .
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3
2 .c

3
1 . 2 .c . U m( r , M )
8 h ω PV( 1 , r , M )

3

3 .M .c
ω Ω_3( r , M )

.ω ( 1 , r , M )
PV

3
c . U m( r , M )
4 .h ω PV( 1 , r , M )

9

3

3 3

c
4 .h

3

2

. .
. 4πr
.
2 c .G.M
3

14

2

27 . c . M
8192 h 3 π2 .r5 .G

5

9

2

27 . c . c . M
8192 G.h h 2 π2 .r5

3

9

2

3 . 2 .c . M
ωh
13
2
2
2
h π .r5

π .r

4

9

ω Ω_3( r , M )

c.

3.

2

9

ω Ω_3( r , M )

3 .ω h

2

. M

4 .π .h

2

St G

5

r

3.

3 .ω h

2

. c
2

4 .π .h

M
St G.
5
r

ω Ω_3( r , M )

224 .

St G = 8.146982 10

5

m

2 9
kg .s

2

1

2

9

9 M
St G .

St G

9

G

St g

5

r

9

Checking errors yields,
ω Ω_3 R M , M M

ω Ω_3 R E, M E

ω Ω_2 R M , M M

ω Ω_2 R E, M E

ω Ω_3 R J , M J

ω Ω_3 R S , M S

ω Ω_2 R J , M J

ω Ω_2 R S , M S

ω Ω_3 R NS , M NS
ω Ω_2 R NS , M NS

.
1 = 6.66133810

1=

14

(%)

. 14
8.88178410

.
1.11022310

13

. 13
1.11022310

.
1.11022310

13

1 . St G

.
1 = 3.33066910

G

(%)

14

(%)

St g

3. “g → ωPV3”
2 .c .n PV

3

ω PV n PV, r , M

3

2
π .r

.g ( r , M )

257

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4. “SωΩ → c⋅Um”
Reducing / simplifying / approximating utilising computational features of the environment
yields,
nΩ

8 .n Ω

3

2

24.n Ω

8 .n Ω . n Ω

4

2

2

nΩ

2

nΩ

2

8 .n Ω

simplify

32.n Ω factor

3 .n Ω factor

2

substitute , n Ω

4

2

8 .n Ω . n Ω

2
8 .n Ω . n Ω

3 .n Ω

2

3

24.n Ω

2

32.n Ω

16

4

3

Hence,
nΩ
8 .n Ω

2
3

4

2

2
24.n Ω

S ωΩ ( r , M )

nΩ

2

4

nΩ

4

32.n Ω 8 .n Ω . n Ω

h .
4
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .
2
.
2c

nΩ
2

2

8 .n Ω

4

3 .n Ω

n Ω ( r, M )

4

24.n Ω

2

32.n Ω

8 .n Ω . n Ω

2

3 .n Ω

4

2

3

n Ω ( r, M )

4

16
2
8 .n Ω . n Ω

3

8 .n Ω

3

h .
4
3
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .8 .n Ω ( r , M )
2
.
2c
3

2
c
4 .h .
4
4
3 .M .c
3 4 .h .
.
S ωΩ ( r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .n Ω ( r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .
2
2
2 .r .ω PV( 1 , r , M ) 2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
c
c

3

4

3
2
3
4 .h .c . ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .
3 .M .c
3 .M .c
S ωΩ ( r , M )
2 3
3 . . .
3
8 .c .r ω PV( 1 , r , M ) 2 π h ω PV( 1 , r , M ) 4 .π .r

Hence,
S ωΩ ( r , M ) c .U m( r , M )

5. “CΩ_J”
C Ω_J ( r , M )

2 d
λ Ω ( r , M ) . U m( r , M )
dr

2

C Ω_J1( r , M )

2

c
9

2

M
St G.
5
r
9 .c .
St G
4 .π
4

St J

. .
. d 3Mc
d r 4 .π .r3

2
9

C Ω_J1( r , M )

2

c

2

. r

9

2

St G

St J
2

r

9

5

9

. M

M

2

1

. .
.9 M c
4
4 .π .r

2

2

5 9

9 .c .
9 M
St G .
26
4 .π
r
4

5

8

r

258

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Checking errors yields,
C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M M

C Ω_J1 R S , M M

C Ω_J 100.( km) , M M
C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M E
C Ω_J 100.( km) , M E
C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M J
C Ω_J 100.( km) , M J
C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M S
C Ω_J 100.( km) , M S
C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M NS
C Ω_J 100.( km) , M NS

C Ω_J R S , M M

1=

.
3.63875410

8

.
2.95903310

6

.
9.40034410

4

C Ω_J1 R S , M E
C Ω_J R S , M E
C Ω_J1 R S , M J

(%)

1=

C Ω_J R S , M J

0.979587

C Ω_J1 R S , M S

0.979587

C Ω_J R S , M S

.
3.86357610

12

.
4.23450210

10

.
1.3506210

7

.
1.41439110

4

.
1.41439110

4

(%)

C Ω_J1 R S , M NS
C Ω_J R S , M NS

vi. Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and SBH characteristics
1. “λx, mx”
n Ω_1( r , M )

2 .c
1 . U m( r , M ) 1 . 3 .M .c .
8 U ω( r , M ) 8 4 .π .r3 h .ω ( 1 , r , M ) 4
PV
2

3

2
1 . 3 .M .c .

2 .c

2
1 . 3 .M .c .

3

8 4 .π .r3 h .ω ( 1 , r , M ) 4 8 4 .π .r3
PV

1 . 3 .M .c .
8 4 .π .r3

2 .c

2

3

2 .c

3
1 2 .c .G.M
h. .
r
π .r

1 . 3 .M .c .
8 4 .π .r3

3

3

2 .c

2

3
1 2 .c .G.M
h. .
r
π .r

4

4

3

3
1 2 .c .G.M . 2 .c .G.M
h. .
4
π .r
π .r
r

3 .c . r

3

2
1 . 3 .M .c .

8 4 .π .r3

2 .c

3. c . . 2
cr
1 . 4 h .G

3

3
1 2 .c .G.M . 2 .c .G.M 8
h. .
4
π .r
π .r
r

3 .c . r
n Ω_1( r , M )

1. 4

9

8

3

3

n Ω_1( r , M )

2 .c .G.M
π .r

3

n Ω_2( r , M )

3

λh

r . π .c . 3
.
16
2
2 GM λh
7

2 .c .G.M
π .r

3 .
16

2

π .m h

8

3

λh

2 .c .G.M
π .r

2 3
2

3

7
r . π .m h . 3
16
2
2 M λh λh

3

1

1

9

1. 4

2

. r
M
λh

3 9

7

n Ω_2( r , M )

1. 3
2

259

7

2

.

π .m h
M

7

9

. r
λh

9

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9

λ x.λ h

n Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

7

16

2

mx

3
3 .π . 7
λx
16
2

2
c .R BH
2 .G

R BH

9

m
. π . h. 3
m x.m h λ h λ 2
h

3

2

2 .G .
M BH
2
c

9

7

3
3
3 .π . λ x 1 . 3 .π . λ x
16 m
2
x 2 mx 2

M BH

.

5

R BH

7

2

2
c .R BH
2 .G

λ x.λ h

5

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

m x.m h

2

.

5

R BH

2

.

5

R BH
5

2
1. λ x . c
4 R 3 G
BH

2

2
λ x.λ h .c

2

λ x.λ h

5

m x.m h

2

λh

.

5

2
1. λ x . c
4 R 3 G
BH

5

5

1.

m x.m h

St ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

2 .G.m x.m h

6

λ x 33 .π
.λ 7
x
2 216

9

3

2

λ x 4.

3
3 .π

λh

.

λx

5

m x.m h
2 2

λx

4 λ .λ
x h

2

2

. c
3 G

.

λh

2

5

m x.m h

c

2

5

1.

. c
3 G

4 λ .λ
x h

2

2
λ x.λ h .c

mh

λx

mx

2

λh

.

1.λ x

1

2

mx

2 .G.m x.m h

λx
2

9

n Ω_3 λ x

2

2
λ x.λ h .c

5

m x.m h

2 .G.m x.m h 2 m x

G λh

4 . 2
6
π 3

2 2

λx

3
1 . 3 .π . λ x
2 λx 2

9

7

1.
2

3.

3 π.

λx

6

2

2
3
9

n Ω_3 λ x

π.

3.

2

λx

2

2

λ x.λ h = 1.093333 10

10 .

ym

n Ω_3 λ x

λx

1 = 0 ( %)

.
m x.m h = 7.36147410

8

mx

( kg )

mx

=

2.698709
1.349354

1 = 0.14278 ( % )

2

Km
n Ω_3
n Ω_3

1
3

0.248017

1

0.324994

2

n Ω_3( 1 )

=

0.515897
0.818935

n Ω_3( 2 )

1

n Ω_3 λ x

1.073108

n Ω_3( 3 )

260

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2. “ρm(λxλh,mxmh), Um(λxλh,mxmh)”
V( r )

4. . 3
πr
3

ρ m( r , M )

. 94 kg
ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.34467810
3
m

M
V( r )

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

. 87 ( YPa)
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.20853710

ρ m R S, M S

.
= 9.55041510

90

3. Physicality of “Kλ”
. 42 ( Hz)
K ω .ω h = 6.36576910
K λ .λ h

K λ .λ h = 4.709446 10

35 .

m

.
K m.m h = 6.34179210

8

( kg )

1 = 0.82832 ( % )

2 .r γγ

4. “KPV @ λxλh”
i. “KPV = Undefined”
Recognising,
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

h .
ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h
3
.
2c

4

h .
ω Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h
3
.
2c

4

m h c2
λh

G

It follows that,
ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h

3 . . .
.
1 . 2 c G mx mh .
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h
λ x.λ h
π .λ x.λ h

3

3

1 .
λ x.λ h

2 .c .G.m x.m h
π .λ x.λ h

3

2 .c .G.
1 .
λ x.λ h

. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h

λx
2 .c .G. .m h
1 .
2
. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h
.
.
λxλh
π λ x.λ h

λx

.m
h
2
. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h
π .λ x.λ h

3

c . 1.
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h
λ x.λ h π
ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ωh

ωh

3

c . 1.
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h
λ x.λ h π

3

. 1. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h
λx π

3

. 1. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h
λx π

261

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Performing substitutions yields,
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
h .
ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h
3
.
2c

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
h .
ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h
3
.
2c

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
4

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
4

3
h . ωh. 1.
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h
3
2 .c λ x π

4

3.

4

2 .π . π .c λ x

.K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h

3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
.
4
.
h ωh
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h

4

.K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h

h .ω h
3

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x

4

3
h . ωh. 1.
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h
3 λ
π
.
2c
x

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

h .ω h

4

2

2

2

Checking errors yields,
3
h . ωh. 1
3
2 .c λ x π

h .ω h

4

.
1 = 6.66133810

14

(%)

4

3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x
ω 3
. h . h. 1
4
3
2 .c λ x π
h .ω h

4

.
1 = 6.66133810

14

(%)

3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x

Evaluating,
3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x
.U λ .λ , m .m = 8
m x h x h
4
.
h ωh

Checking errors yields,
3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x
.U λ .λ , m .m
m x h x h
4
.
h ωh

.
8 = 8.88178410

13

(%)

3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x

h .ω h

4

= 6.619576

10

87

YPa

. 87 ( YPa)
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.20853710

262

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Simplifying,
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

8
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h

2

K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h

2. 2.

U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

Recognising that the EGM spectrum converges to a single mode for a SPBH yields,
Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

n Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

12

Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

4. 3

4
.
Ω λ x λ h , m x.m h

1 1

4 . 3 = 6.928203

3

Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

108.

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

12. 768 81.

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

2

4. 3

By inspection, the only solution which satisfies this equation is,
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

0

Checking yields,
3

108.0

2
12. 768 81.0 = 6.928203

Therefore,
2. 2

K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h

K PV R BH, M BH

Undefined

0

K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ii. “KDepp = KPV”

K Depp ( r , M )

1
2 .G.M

2

1

r .c

1

r .c

2

2

K PV( r , M )

2 .G.M

2 .G.M
r .c

K Depp ( r , M )

2

K Depp ( r , M )

K PV( r , M )

2

1

K Depp ( r , M )

r .c

K Depp R E, M E = 1.00000000069601

2

K PV R E, M E = 1.00000000069601

K PV( r , M )

1

263

2 .G.M
r .c

2

r .c

1

r .c

2

2

2 .G.M

R BH

2 .G .
M BH
2
c

www.deltagroupengineering.com

K PV R BH, M BH

2 .G.M BH

1

1

1

2 .G .
2
M BH.c
2
c

1

K Depp λ x.λ h , m x.m h

λh

0

1
.
2 G.m x.m h

2

K Depp λ x.λ h , m x.m h

m h c2

Undefined

1
.
2 G.m x c2
.
1
2 G
.
λxc

1

2
λ x.λ h .c

K Depp R BH, M BH

λx

mx

G

1

1

2 .m x
λx

2

1

2.

λx 0

Undefined

2

1

λx

Undefined

5. “ωΩ_3”

2

M
St G.
5
r

St G.

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

2

St G m h
.
3
5
.
4λx λh

3
4 .λ

3

.

x

3
4 .λ

3

π .h

x
2

ω h .m h
π .h

2

ωh

.

St G.

9
St G .

m x.m h

9

9

15 . 2

2

π

9

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

9

3
λx

3

.

ωh

9

St G.

9

1.

15 2
2 .π 2

3

2

.

ωh

2

λ x.λ h
3

ωh

.

m h .c

7

2

π .h

x

St G.

5

2

3
4 .λ

2

St G.

ωh

2

.m
h

λ x.λ h

2

9 m
. c . h
2 λ 5
h

h

15 2
2 .π

λx

.m
h

3

.

2

5

ω h .m h

x

π .h

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

St G m h
.
3
5
4 .λ x λ h
2

.

5
4
c .ω h
9

2

3

3

λx

.

ωh

9

15 2
2 .π

1

9

1

.

λx

5

λ x.λ h

3

3
4 .λ

3

1

3

5

2
c .m h
.
h
λx

3

2

.

λ x.λ h

2

St G.

2

5
4
c .ω h
.

9

2

9 m
. c . h
2 λ 5
h

2
1

m x.m h

λx


h

.
1 = 1.11022310

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

9

St G.

9

3

. 1 .ω
h
λ x 26 .π2

1.
2

13

(%)

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

3
λx

3

.

ωh

9

15 2
2 .π

9

3

3

9

3

1. 1 . 3
. 1 .ω

h
h
2 π2 4 .λ x
λ x 26 .π2
2

9

3

1. 1 . 3

h
2 π2 4 .λ x

3

1
9

.
2

2. π

1

3 .
ωh
.
4λx

9
St G .

m x.m h

9

.
5

λ x.λ h

9

264

3

1
9

2. π

.
2

1

3 .
ωh
.
4λx

.
1 = 1.11022310

13

(%)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9

1. 1 .
2 π2

6

4. 4.

9

3

3

9

4

1. 3 . 6
4 25 π3

3

2

m x.m h
9
St G .
λ x.λ h

5
9

1

9

9

4

. 1 . 3 . 6 .ω
h
4 25 π3

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h
9

4

1. 3 . 6 .
ωh
4 25 π3

3
3 .π
2

1

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

.
1 = 1.11022310

.
1 = 1.11022310

13

13

(%)

. 18 ( YHz)
ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.87219710

(%)

4

1. 3 . 6 .
ωh
4 25 π3

1.
. 18 ( YHz)
ω h = 1.84996810
4

λx

e

e
1

α

1

α

ωh

1.

1 . e
λx 1 α

= 2.698589

.
1 = 4.43474910

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h

3

(%)

n Ω_2 λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1

n Ω_3 λ x

n Ω_3 λ x = 1

1 = 1.18731904721517( % )

4 ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

6. “ωΩ_4”
9

ω Ω_4 M BH

2

9

M BH

St G.

2 .G.M BH
c

c.
5

c .St G

9

5
3
( 2 .G) .M BH

ω Ω_4 M BH

St BH.

c .St G
5
( 2 .G)

2

ω Ω_4 m x.m h
3

St BH

c.

1
M BH

ω Ω_4 M S
10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

265

. 18
1.87219710
= 6.23977510
. 5

( YHz)

289.624693

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7. “rS”
i. “rS(λxλh)”

ρ m( r , M )

3 .M

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

4 .π .r

3

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
3 .m h

.
1 = 2.22044610

14

3.

3 .m x.m h

λx
2

4 .π . λ x.λ h

3

.m
h

3 .m h

4 .π . λ x.λ h

3 .M BH

ρ m r S , M BH

(%)

2
3
8 .π .λ x .λ h

3

4 .π .r S

3

2
3
8 .π .λ x .λ h

M BH

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ρ m r S , M BH

3

ωh

2

R BH( M )

2 .G.λ x

3

2

rS

3

r S M BH

λ x.λ h

2

ωh

ωh

2

2 .G.λ x

2

3

.M
. . 2.
BH λ h 2 λ x

= 1.195378 10

32 .

G

2

λh

2

ωh

2

kg

.
= 5.63257510

94

2

3

m

M BH

3

r S R BH

mh

r S λ x.λ h

2

am

λh

c

2

2 .G.M
c

2
2 .G.λ x

m h c2

2
3
2 .λ x .λ h

rS

M BH

mh

3

2
λ x.λ h .R BH

2
λ x.λ h . λ x.λ h

λ x.λ h

ii. “rS(ΜΒΗ), rS(RΒΗ)”
3

ρS

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

r S M BH

r S R BH

3

2
3 .c .R BH

8 .π .G.ρ S

2
λ x.λ h .R BH M S
3

2.

3 .c R BH M S
8 .π .G.ρ S

1
rS MS

3 .M BH
4 .π .ρ S

3
3

3.

.

4 .π .r S

3

2
λ x.λ h .R BH M S
3

2.

3 .c R BH M S
8 .π .G.ρ S

rS MS
1 = 0 (%)

2
c .R BH
2 .G

1=

.
3.28046310

5.

r S 10 M S

=

10
r S 10 .M S

266

0.015227

ρS

2
3 .c .R BH

8 .π .G.r S

3

.
1.11022310

14

.
1.11022310

14

(%)

4

( am)

0.706754

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ρ m r S m x.m h , m x.m h
ρ m r S M S ,M S
1 .
5
5
ρ S ρ m r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

1=

.
1.29896110

12

.
8.32667310

13

.
7.66053910

13

.
6.7723610

10
10
ρ m r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

(%)

13

U m r S M S ,M S

.
8.10462810

1
. U m r S 105 .M S , 105 .M S
.
.
U m λ x λ h,m x mh
10
10
U m r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S
ρ m r S m x.m h , m x.m h

.
7.2164510

13

.
6.7723610

13

(%)

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ρ m r S M BH , M BH
10
r S 10 .M S

r uq = 0.768186 ( am)

1=

13

U m r S M BH , M BH

1 = 7.996993 ( % )

r uq

iii. “MBH(rS)”
4. .
3
π ρ S .r S
3

M BH r S

M BH r tq

. 10
= 2.27391910

. 40 ( kg )
M BH r tq = 4.52155110
M BH r uq

MS

. 10
= 1.28408510

MS

M BH r ε

M BH r π

M BH r ν

M BH r µ

. 13 1.62379510
. 19 1.60185510
. 19 1.57097210
. 13
4.66247210

M BH r τ

M BH r en

M BH r µn

M BH r τn

. 13 2.45782610
. 7
5.19529810

1 . M
BH r uq

M BH r dq

M BH r sq

M BH r cq

= 1.28408510
. 10 2.95005410
. 10 1.9828610
. 10 3.68186410
. 10

M BH r bq

M BH r tq

M BH r W

. 10 2.27391910
. 10 5.99684310
. 10 3.39015710
. 10
3.47948910

M BH r H

M BH r γγ

M BH r gg

M BH r Z
1 .( kg )

MS

. 10
2.3560510

. 9 2.12850410
. 11
7.96867110

0

0

14.554628

. 6
5.06892810

R BH M BH r τn

16.217926

.
7.67248410

R BH M BH r sq

R BH M BH r cq

= 4.00847210
.

R BH M BH r tq

R BH M BH r W

R BH M BH r Z

0.010862

R BH M BH r γγ

R BH M BH r gg

R BH( 1.( kg ) )

.
7.35477510

R BH M BH r ε

R BH M BH r π

R BH M BH r ν

R BH M BH r µ

R BH M BH r τ

R BH M BH r en

R BH M BH r µn

R BH M BH r uq

R BH M BH r dq

R BH M BH r bq
R BH M BH r H

ω Ω_4 m x.m h

5
ω Ω_4 10 .M S
10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

=

. 5
6.23977510

.
9.2090510

3

.
7.0983910

3

3

0

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

. 18
1.87219710

ω Ω_4 M S

3

. 4
1.34431910

5
5
U m R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

289.624693

10
10
U m R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

267

. 6
5.0004410

4.904034

.
2.48754410

3

0.066445

.
6.18980410

3

0.011494 ( Lyr)

0.01872

0.010583

0

0

. 87
1.20853710

U m R BH M S , M S
( YHz)

6

0

=

. 12
1.65639710

( YPa)

165.639685
.
1.65639710

8

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r S mh
1 . r m .m
S x h
λh
λx

r S m x.m h
R BH m x.m h

144.219703

1=

.
4.21884710

(%)

13

.
1 = 4.44089210

M BH r π

1 = 22.109851 ( % )

=

M BH r e

R BH m h

(%)

. 43
9.27104510

M BH r ε
r S mh

13

M BH r Bohr

. 49
3.22881910
. 51
1.26038310

( kg )

. 63
8.34661610

8. “r → RBH”
i. “nΩ → nΩ_4, nΩ_5, nBH”
n Ω_2 r S M BH , M BH

n Ω_4 M BH

n BH M BH

n Ω_5 M BH

n Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

n Ω_4 m x.m h

n Ω_5 m x.m h

n BH m x.m h

n Ω_4 M S

n Ω_5 M S

n BH M S

5
n Ω_4 10 .M S

5
n Ω_5 10 .M S

5
n BH 10 .M S

10
n Ω_4 10 .M S

10
n Ω_5 10 .M S

10
n BH 10 .M S

R BH M S

∆R bh

n Ω_2 R BH M BH , M BH

rS MS

200

R bh

1
=

1

1

. 5 9.00254210
. 24 2.56419310
. 19
3.51086810
. 6 1.93953910
. 28 1.0035610
. 22
1.93265910
. 7 4.1786110
. 31 3.92767810
. 24
1.06388810

r S M S , ∆R bh .. R BH M S
Harmonic Cut-Off Mode vs Radial Disp.

Harmonic Cut-Off Mode

rS MS

R BH M S

n Ω _2 R bh , M S
5
n Ω _2 R bh , 10 .M S
10
n Ω _2 R bh , 10 .M S
n Ω _4 M S

R bh
Radial Displacement

Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (1 Solar Mass)
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (10^5 Solar Masses)
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (10^10 Solar Masses)

268

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ii. “ωΩ → ωΩ_5, ωBH”
ω Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_3 r S M BH , M BH

ω Ω_4 m x.m h

. 5
6.23977510

=

5
ω Ω_4 10 .M S
10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

. 18
1.87219710

ω Ω_5 M S
( YHz)

5
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

289.624693

10
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

1

ω BH M S

. 13
7.30358710

10
ω BH 10 .M S

ω Ω_4 M BH

. 4
1.34431910

ω BH m x.m h
=

ω Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_5 m x.m h

. 18
1.87219710

ω Ω_4 M S

5
ω BH 10 .M S

ω BH M BH

=

. 19
4.55727410
. 19
6.9805610

( YHz)

. 20
1.06924110

. 15
5.19263810
. 17
3.69181510

ω Ω_5 m x.m h
ω Ω_5 M S
1 .
5
ω h ω Ω_5 10 .M S
10
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

ω Ω_4 m x.m h

0.253004

ω Ω_4 M S
5
ω Ω_4 10 .M S
10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

=

0.253004

.
6.158585 8.43227510

14

.
9.433354 1.81667910

15

14.44945

0

Harmonic Cut-Off Freq. vs Radial Disp.

Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency

rS MS

R BH M S

ω Ω _3 R bh , m x .m h
ω Ω _3 R bh , M S
5
ω Ω _3 R bh , 10 .M S
10
ω Ω _3 R bh , 10 .M S

R bh
Radial Displacement

Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (1 Solar Mass)
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (10^5 Solar Masses)
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (10^10 Solar Masses)

269

www.deltagroupengineering.com

iii. “ωΩ_6, ωΩ_7, ωPV_1”
ω Ω_6 M BH

ω Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

ω PV_1 M BH

ω Ω_4 M BH

ω Ω_7 M BH

n Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_6 M BH
ω Ω_7 M BH

ω Ω_6 m x.m h

ω Ω_7 m x.m h

. 42 1.87219710
. 42
1.87219710

ω Ω_6 M S

ω Ω_7 M S

. 38 6.93112610
. 4
1.29804810

5
ω Ω_6 10 .M S

5
ω Ω_7 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_6 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_7 10 .M S

ω PV_1 m x.m h

=

. 37
3.61189510

( Hz)

0.693113

. 37 6.93112610
.
1.00503110

6

1

ω PV_1 M S
=

5.

ω PV_1 10 M S

. 33
1.8727810
.
5.21112310

37

1

.

ωh

10
ω PV_1 10 .M S ( Hz)

= 5.103269

. 42
1.45002610

10
ω PV_1 10 .M S

Fundamental Freq. vs Radial Disp.
rS MS

R BH M S

Fundamental Frequency

ω Ω _3 R bh , m x .m h
n Ω _2 R bh , m x .m h
ω Ω _3 R bh , M S
n Ω _2 R bh , M S
5
ω Ω _3 R bh , 10 .M S
5
n Ω _2 R bh , 10 .M S
ω Ω _3 R bh , 10
n Ω _2 R bh , 10

10 .
MS

10 .
MS

R bh
Radial Displacement

Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (1 Solar Mass)
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (10^5 Solar Masses)
Schwarzschild-Black-Hole (10^10 Solar Masses)

270

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9. “TL”
M .c

E( M )

2

n γ ω , M BH

1.
n γ ω , M BH
2
E g( ω )

h .ω

E γ( ω )

E g ( ω ) E x.E γ ( ω )

E M BH

E M BH

n g ω , M BH

E γ( ω )
E M BH

E M BH
E x.E γ ( ω )

E m x.m h = 6.616163 ( GJ)

2 .E γ ( ω )

n γ ω Ω_4 m x.m h , m x.m h
n g ω Ω_4 m x.m h , m x.m h

=

Ex

= 6.616163 ( GJ)

P g ω Ω_4 m x.m h

n γγ( M )

E g ω Ω_4 m x.m h

= 1.240531 ( GJ)

P γ ω Ω_4 m x.m h

c

= 8.275929 ( Ns )

2 .n gg ( M )

T Ω _3( r , M )

T L r S λ x.λ h , m x.m h

10
10
T L r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

=

m γγ
m gg

3.195095

=

6.39019

1

P g( ω )

10

=2

E g( ω )
c

45 .

T L( r , M )

ω Ω _3( r , M )

n gg ( M )

eV

E( M )
m gg

n gg ( M ) .T Ω _3( r , M )
n g ω Ω _3( r , M ) , M

9
10 .yr

. 13
4.10173110
. 13
4.10173110

T L r uq , m uq

. 13
4.10173110

T L R BH M S , M S

10
10
T L R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

s

E g ω Ω_4 m x.m h
E γ ω Ω_4 m x.m h

= 2.481061 ( GJ)

= 4.137964 ( Ns )

. 13
4.10173110

T L R BH λ x.λ h , m x.m h

5
5
T L R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

43 .

. 13
4.10173110

T L r S M S ,M S
5
5
T L r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

2 .E M BH
2
n γ ω , M BH .E γ ( ω )

2.666667

n g ω Ω_4 m x.m h , m x.m h .E g ω Ω_4 m x.m h

E γ( ω )

1.
n γ ω , M BH
2

5.333333

= 6.616163 ( GJ)

P γ( ω )

ω Ω_4 M BH

T Ω_4 m x.m h = 5.341319 10

n γ ω Ω_4 m x.m h , m x.m h .E γ ω Ω_4 m x.m h

E γ ω Ω_4 m x.m h

1

n g ω , M BH

E g( ω )

1.
n γ ω , M BH
2

E g( ω )

T Ω_4 M BH

=

. 13
4.10173110
.
4.10173110

13

9
10 .yr

T L r ε, m e
T L r π, m p
T L r ν,mn

. 13
4.10173110

271

. 13
4.10173110
=

. 13
4.10173110
.
4.10173110

13

9
10 .yr

. 13
4.10173110

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1
m γγ

h.

=

2

. 13
4.10173110
.
4.10173110

13

m γγ
T L λ x.λ h , m x.m h
. m
gg
h
2

9.

10 yr

m gg
H0

71.

km
.
s Mpc

=

1

TL

1

h
m γγ

.
T L.H 0 = 2.97830810

12

10. “ωg, ngg”
T PV n PV, r , M

T g n PV, r , M

n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M

n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M
T PV n PV, r , M

T PV n PV, r , M

ω PV n PV, r , M .n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M

ω PV n PV, r , M .n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M

ω g n PV, r , M

n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M

ω g n PV, r , M

1
ω PV n PV, r , M . .n γ ω PV n PV, r , M , M
2

E( M )
1
ω PV n PV, r , M . .
2 E γ ω PV n PV, r , M

1
E( M )
ω PV n PV, r , M . .
2 E γ ω PV n PV, r , M
1
E( M )
ω PV n PV, r , M . .
2 h .ω PV n PV, r , M
ω g m x.m h

E( M )
2 .h

=

10
ω g 10 .M S

. 56
1.34855310
. 61
1.34855310

E MS
1 .
5
m gg E 10 .M S
10
E 10 .M S

M .c
2 .h

2

n gg ( M )

5
n gg 10 .M S
10
n gg 10 .M S

T L.ω g ( M )

. 72
6.46222510

n gg M S

( YHz)

. 66
1.34855310

E m x.m h

ω g( M )

n gg m x.m h

. 18
4.99252510

ωg MS
5
ω g 10 .M S

1
E( M )
ω PV n PV, r , M . .
.
2 h ω PV n PV, r , M

=

. 110
1.7455410
. 115
1.7455410
. 120
1.7455410

. 72
6.46222510
=

. 110
1.7455410
. 115
1.7455410
. 120
1.7455410

272

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11. BH’s
r0

c

1

9
r 0 = 13.772016 10 .Lyr

H0

5

St G.

r ω ω Ω_3 , M

M

ω VL λ VL

c

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

9

λ VL

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω Ω_3 r 0 , M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

5
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S

5
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

10 .

218.810356

410.269418

. 4 6.84370610
. 4
3.64997710

ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

4
ω Ω_3 1.63.10 .r 0 , M S

4
ω Ω_3 5.052.10 .r 0 , M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

6
5
ω Ω_3 1.63.10 .r 0 , 10 .M S

6
5
ω Ω_3 5.052.10 .r 0 , 10 .M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

ω Ω_3 1.63.10 r 0 , 10 M S

10 .

8.

ω Ω_3 5.052.10 r 0 , 10

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

10
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S

( THz)

. 3 5.29883310
. 3
= 2.82604410

10 .

MS

5
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S

749.481145

27.355887

ω Ω_3 r 0 , M S

C Ω_J1 r 0 , M S

399.723277

= 2.118067 ( EHz)

10
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S

8.

=

0.163994

5
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S

ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10

H0

2

ω Ω_3

ω Ω_3 r 0 , M S

9
= 13.772016 10 .yr

0.999916 1.000078
= 0.999916 1.000078
0.999916 1.000078

10 .

MS

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )
.
1.48429110

5

= 8.89809310
.

3

10

20 .

yJy

5.334267

1
10
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S .

C Ω_J1 r 0 , M S
1

=

. 5
3.59381410
599.48425

5
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S

273

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , M S

r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , M S

5
r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

5
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

10
r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

10
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , M S

5
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

10
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

10
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 M S , 10 M S
10
10
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 M S , 10 M S
10
10
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

=

. 6
2.95234410

0.741144

( Lyr)

16 .

yJy

= 2.12751776034345
.103 8.46980075872643
.10

3

.105
2.12751776034345

= 2.93002110
.

7

0.846980075872643

1.166462
116.646228

6
10 .Lyr

. 9 1.16646210
. 4
2.93002110

2.164916
.
= 2.16491610

3

.
2.16491610

6

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , M S , M S
5.

0.239057

5

. 5
2.93002110

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , M S , M S
5.

10

=

.10
21.2751776034345 8.46980075872643

10
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

5
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

r ω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h

1.102778

5
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

r ω 30.( EHz) , M S

r ω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h

28.979765

=

r ω 30.( PHz) , M S

5.

. 8 5.05271110
. 8
1.62975410

r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

r ω 30.( EHz) , M S

5.

= 1.62975410
. 6 5.05271110
. 6

r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

C Ω_J1 r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h , m x.m h

1 . r 30.( PHz) , 105 .M
ω
S
r0
10
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

. 4 5.05271110
. 4
1.62975410

10
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

C Ω_J1 r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h , m x.m h

9
10 .Lyr

9
. 9
2.2445.10 6.95860210

5
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

1.
10
( Lyr) , 10 .M S = 1.031709
10

r ω 30.( PHz) , M S

= 2.2445.107 6.95860210
. 7

r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , M S

1 . r ω ( 400 ( nm ) ) , 105 .M
ω VL
S
r0
10
r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm) ) , 10 .M S

K PV

5
. 5
2.2445.10 6.95860210

10

29 .

10

14 .

yJy

8.618686
.
= 8.61868610

3

.
8.61868610

6

yJy

3
10 .km

11.753495

7
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h , m x.m h = 6.228302 10 .yJy

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h , m x.m h = 2.479532 ( fJy )

274

www.deltagroupengineering.com

vii. Fundamental Cosmology
1. “Hα, HU”
i. “AU, RU, HU”
5

C Ω_J1 r 1 , M 1

9

C Ω_J1( r , M )

M
St J .
26
r

ln

C Ω_J1 r 1 , M 1
C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

λ y r 2, M 2

ln

9

5

M1

ln

.

M2

r2

r1
M1

r1

K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

9

ln

ln

A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

H U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

ln

.

r2

26

5

ln

ri

C Ω_J1 r 1 , M 1
C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

λ y r 2 , M 2 .r 3
λ y r 2, M 2
.M
3
2
5

λy M3
r
.
. 1 . 2
2 M2
λy r3

C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

λy M3
r
.
. 1 . 2
2 M2
λy r3

rf

r1

C Ω_J1 r 3 , M 3

26

26

λ y r 2, M 2
.M
C Ω_J1 λ y r 2 , M 2 .r 3 ,
3
2
C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2
5

5

K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

5

M2

26

ln n Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

M1

C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

9

1

C Ω_J1 r 3 , M 3

9

1
2

9

7

.ln n
Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

TL
K U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

5

1

3.

M3

26

9

.

M2

r2

9

r3

R U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

c .A U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

9
A U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 14.575885 10 .yr

A U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

9
R U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 14.575885 10 .Lyr

H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 67.084304
1 .
H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h
H0

km
s .Mpc

1 = 5.515064 ( % )

275

www.deltagroupengineering.com

H U R o , λ x.λ h , M G, m x.m h
H U R o , λ h , M G, m h

66.700842

H U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h

70.06923

H U R o , λ x.λ h , M G, m x.m h
1 .
H0

km
.
s Mpc

= 69.672169

6.055152

H U R o , λ h , M G, m h

1=

1.870184 ( % )

H U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h

1.310944

1
km
H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h = 67.753267
.
3
s Mpc

H U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h
1
H U K λ .R o , λ h , .K m.M G, m h
3

1=

H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

0.978843
0.987352

(%)

1
H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h
3

ii. “Hα”
3 .H
ρm
8 .π .G
2

H α r 3, M 3

2.

. 61
H α λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 8.46094110

λx
H α λ x.λ h , m x.m h .
ωh

2. . .
π G ρ m r 3, M 3
3

H α λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ωh

km
s .Mpc

.
1 = 4.44089210

λx

14

.
= 8.46094110

61

ωh
λx
km
s .Mpc

(%)

iii. “ρU”
3 .H U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3
8 .π .G

ρ U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

2

ρ U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h
ρ U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h
3 .H 0

2

8.453235
= 9.222226

10

33 .

kg
3

cm

9.468862

8 .π .G

Hence,
8.45 ρ U . 10

33 .

kg

9.23

3

cm

276

www.deltagroupengineering.com

iv. “MU”
M U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

V R U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 .ρ U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

. 52 ( kg )
M U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 9.28458610

2. “TU”
K T r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

λ Ω_3 r 3 , M 3

n g ω Ω_3 r 3 , M 3 , M 3 .ln

c

T0

ω Ω_3 r 3 , M 3

T W r 2, r 3, M 2 , M 3

T U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

H α r 3, M 3
H U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

2.725.( K )

.
K W = 2.89776910

3

( m.K )

KW
λ Ω_3 R U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 , M 3
K T r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3 .T W r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 2.724752 ( K )

1 .
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

.
1 = 9.08391310

3

(%)

T0

T U R o , λ x.λ h , M G, m x.m h
T U R o , λ h , M G, m h

2.716201
= 1.199134 ( K )

T U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h

1.202877

T U R o , λ x.λ h , M G, m x.m h
1 .
T0

T U R o , λ h , M G, m h
T U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h

0.322893
1=

55.995089 ( % )
55.857737

1
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h = 2.739618 ( K )
3

T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

1 = 0.542607 ( % )

1
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h
3

277

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3. “TU → TU2”
9

c

c

λ Ω_3( r , M )

ω Ω_3( r , M )

9

2

M
St G.
5
r

9

5

c
c λ x.
λ Ω_3 ,
mh
H 2

1 .
St G

c.

λx

8 . H α r 3, M 3
ln
3
H

K T( H ) .T W ( H )

ωh
8.
.
ln
3
λ x.H

ωh
8.
.
ln
3
λ x.H

2

.m
h

1 .
2
St G λ x.m h

2

. c
H

λ Ω_3

KW

T U2( H ) K T( H ) .T W ( H )

c λ x.
mh
λ Ω_3 ,
H 2

c λ x.
,
mh
H 2

ωh
8.
.
ln
3
λ x.H

c λ x.
,
mh
H 2

KW
9

c.

1 .
2
St G λ x.m h

2

. c
H

9

c.

1 .
2
St G λ x.m h

2

. c
H

5

ωh
λ .m
8 .K W .
. St . x h
ln
G
3 c
2
λ x.H

.
H α = 8.46094110

km
.
s Mpc

. H
c

5

ωh
λ .m
8 KW.
. St . x h
T U2( H ) .
ln
G
3 c
2
λ x.H
9

.
8 . St G . λ x m h
St T
5
3 .c
2
c

8 .
3 .c

2

9

61

9

3.

5

9

KW

λx

9

5

KW

KW

ωh

c.

T W( H)

ωh
8.
.
ln
3
λ x.H

λ Ω_3

9

H

2

K T( H )

5

1 . r
St G M 2

c.

3 .ω h
4 .π .h
c

5

2

. c
2

9

2

3.

2

.
8 . St G . λ x m h
5
3 .c
2
c

8 .
3 .c

3 .ω h
4 .π .h
c

5

2

. c
2

2

. H
c

5

9

.

λ x.m h

2

2

9

.

λ x.m h
2

2

9

.
8 .c . 3 . 3 ω h
3 .c 2 c5 4 .π .h

2

.

λ x.m h

2

2

278

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9

.
8 .c . 3 . 3 ω h
3 .c 2 c5 4 .π .h
9

4.
3

3

3
4 .c

.

9

3

λ x.m h

9

2

2

2

4.

3

3

6 5
2 .c

3

3
4 .c

3

3

4.

9

2

m λ
. h. x
π .h λ h

4. 3. . λ x
c
3 4
π .h .G

T U2( H )

2

2
λ
. x .c
π .h G

9

3
λx
4. 3. .
c
2
3
3 4
π .c .λ h

K W .St T .ln

ωh
λ x.H

.

λ x.m h .ω h
π .h

3

4.

3

3

6 5
2 .c

.

4.
3

3
4 .c

4.

π .h

3

9

4. 3. 1 . λ x
3 4 c5 π .λ 2
h

9

2

4.
3

3

.

mh λ x
.
π .h λ h

3
3 . λx
c.
4
π .h .G

2

2

2
9
. 95
St T = 6.35557910

s

5
9

m

T U2 H U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

. H5

3
4 .c

3

2
λ
. x .c
π .h G

3

St T

9

2

λ x.m h .ω h

9

2

2

9

9

2

= 2.72475246336977( K )

4. “TU2 → Ro, MG, HU2, ρU2”
∆R o

0.5.( kpc )

T U2 H U2 R o , M G

T U2 H 0

T U2 H U2 R o

1 .
T U2 H U2 R o , M G
T0

= 2.724752 ( K )

1
T U2 H U2 R o , .M G
3

T U2 H U2 R o

H U K λ .r , λ x.λ h , K m.M , m x.m h

H U2( r , M )

=

2.739618

( K)

2.810842

1
∆R o , .K m.M G
3
1
∆R o , .K m.M G
3

=

2.733025
2.741859

.
1 = 9.08391310

T U2 H U2 R o

∆R o , M G

T U2 H U2 R o

∆R o , M G

∆T 0

( K)

Computational environment initialisation values →

=

2.720213
2.729021

3

(%)

( K)

0.001.( K )

r x1

1

m g1

1

r x2

1

m g2

1

Given
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , M G
T U2 H U2 R o , m g1 .M G

T0

∆T 0

T U2 H U2 r x2.R o , M G
T U2 H U2 R o , m g2 .M G

r x1

r x1

r x2

r x2

m g1
m g2

Find r x1, r x2, m g1 , m g2

m g1

T0

∆T 0

0.989364
=

m g2

279

1.017883
1.057292
0.911791

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , M G
T U2 H U2 r x2.R o , M G
T U2 H U2 R o , m g1 .M G
T U2 H U2 R o , m g2 .M G

2.724
=

2.726

R o.

( K)

2.724

r x1

=

r x2

7.914908
8.143063

( kpc )

2.726

. 11
M G m g1
6.34375310
.
=
M S m g2
. 11
5.47074910

r x1 m g1

1.063645 5.729219

1=

r x2 m g2

1.788292

8.820858

(%)

Given
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , m g1 .M G
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , m g2 .M G

∆T 0

T0

T U2 H U2 r x2.R o , m g1 .M G
T U2 H U2 r x2.R o , m g2 .M G

r x3

r x3

r x4

r x4

m g3

Find r x1, r x2, m g1 , m g2

=

2.724

=

2.726

1.013348
0.977007
0.977007

m g4

T U2 H U2 r x3.R o , m g3 .M G
T U2 H U2 r x4.R o , m g4 .M G

∆T 0

0.984956

m g3

m g4

T0

R o.

( K)

. 11
M G m g3
5.8620410
.
=
M S m g4
. 11
5.8620410

r x3

=

r x4

7.879647
8.106786

r x3 m g3
r x4 m g4

1=

( kpc )

1.50441 2.29934
1.334822 2.29934

(%)

Hence, if “T0” is exactly correct (i.e. zero experimental uncertainty); “Ro”, “MG” and “HU2”
may be approximated as follows,
Given
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , m g1 .M G
r x5
m g5

Find r x1, m g1

r x5.R o = 8.107221 ( kpc )

T0
r x5
m g5

m g5 .

H U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G = 67.095419

=

MG

1.013403

T U2 H U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

1.052361

.
= 6.31416710

11

MS

r x5
m g5

1=

1.340256
5.236123

= 2.725 ( K )

( %)

km
.
s Mpc

ρ m R U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h , M U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

= 8.453235 10

33 .

kg
3

cm

280

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5. “UZPF”

ρ
ρc

Ω EGM

Ω PDG

Ω EGM
Ω PDG

3 .H U2( r , M )

ρ U2( r , M )

ρ U2 R o , M G = 8.453235 10

8 .π .G

Ω EGM = 1.000331

ρ U2 R o , M G

.
Ω ZPF = 3.31400710

1

U ZPF

3 .c .
H U2 R o , M G
Ω ZPF .
8 .π .G

13 .

U ZPF = 2.51778 10

Ω EGM

U ZPF = 251.778016

Pa

fJ

U ZPF = 251.778016

U ZPF = 842.934914

3

kg
3

Ω PDG Ω m Ω γ .. Ω ν

Ω ZPF

2

= 0.997339

33 .

cm

ρ U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

1.003

2

m

2

ΩΛ

4

U ZPF = 251.778016( fPa )

yJ

U ZPF = 0.251778

3

mJ
3

mm

km

EJ

. 12
U ZPF = 7.39723510

AU

3

YJ
pc

3

YJ

. 41
U ZPF = 6.60189810

R U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

3

viii. Advanced Cosmology
1. “nΩ_2 → nΩ_6”
9

n Ω_6( r , M )

.
.
3
3 . π mh . K λ r
.
16
2 KmM λh

9

7

9
9

9

1
6.

.
3
3 .K λ π m h . r
16
M
λh
2
2 .
3
3 . π .π m h . r
16 2
M
λh
2

7

7

9

n Ω_6( r , M )

3 .π . m h
4

M

9

6

1

.

π .m h

. r
M
λh

3
( 3 .π ) . m h . r
18
M λh
2
1

3

3

3

3 . π
16
2
2

.
.
3
3 . π mh . K λ r
.
16
2 KmM λh

7

3

3 . π
16
2
2
9

7

3

7 9

6. .
3
3 .K λ π m h . r
16
M
λh
2

7

6

.

π .m h

. r
M
λh

3
( 3 .π ) . m h . r
18
M λh
2

7

9

1.
4

7

9

2 .
3
3 . π .π m h . r
16 2
M
λh
2

3 mh
. r
( 3 .π ) .
M λh

7

7

7

9

. r
λh

9

281

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2. “KU2 → KU3”

K U2( r , M )

ln


λx

7

5

3

9

.ln n
Ω_6( r , M )

.

mh

26
9

. r
λh

4 .M

K U3( r , M ) ln ( 3 .π )

7

5

2 .
ln n Ω_6( r , M )
256

3.

3

( 3 .π )

λx

7 18
6.

5

2

256

26
9

. r
λh

M

.

4

9

mh

9

1

5
7 18
6.

7

5

3. “HU2 → HU3, TU2 → TU3”
K U2( r , M )

H U3( r , M )

5

TL
7
5

7 18
5
6
2

ln ( 3 .π ) .

256

7

.ln n
Ω_6( r , M )

3.

9

mh
M

7 18
5
6
2

9

. r
λh

3

1

26

ln ( 3 .π ) .

.ln

3

9

3 .π . m h

256

4

9

. r
λh

M

5

7

.

mh
M

26

9

. r
λh

9

7
7

5

1 . 18 . . 6 .
2 ( 3 π ) ln
256

K U3( r , M )

ln

T U3( r , M )

T U2 H U3( r , M )

1

1

3
( 3 .π ) . m h

9

4

3

. r
λh

M

5

7
9

.

mh
M

26

9

9

. r
λh

4. “HU3 → HU4, TU3 → TU4”
K U3( r , M )

H U4( r , M )

5

T U4( r , M )

TL

T U2 H U4( r , M )

5. “HU4 → HU5, TU4 → TU5”

µ

1

H U5( r , M )

3

9
3

m γγ

( 3 .π )

.ln

h

7 .µ .

µ

2

32

256

µ

m
.
.ln ( 3 π ) . h
4
M

µ

7 .µ

2

. r
λh

9

λx

4 3 1.
St T . .
3 4 c5 π .λ 2
h

2

St T

9

9

4 . 3
3
4

3

2
7 .µ

5

.

mh
M

5 .µ

2

. r
λh

2
26 .µ

9

.1 .
c

5

2

λx
π .λ h

282

2

9

4 . 3
3
4

3

.1 .
c

5

2

λx
π .λ h

2

4 .1 . λx
3 c5 π .λ 2
h
6

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ωh
λx

6

H α r 3, M 3

2

6
( 4 .µ ) .

ωh

5

π .H α .λ h

c

St T

1
c

St T

4 .1 . λx
3 c5 π .λ 2
h

3

1
c

µ

2

c

1

2

9

9

.

1
π .H α

.
. 4µ
λh

6
( 4 .µ ) .

2 .µ

.

π .H α .λ h

3

.
. 4µ
λh

5

π .H α .λ h

c

c

π .H α .λ h

1

2

9

9

9

1

2 .µ

3

.

1
π .H α

2

T U5( r , M )

π .H α

.
. 4µ
λh

KW
c

µ

.ln

2

2

1

3

6

c

1

ωh

6

3

2

( 4 .µ ) .

6
( 4 .µ ) .

2

1

2

1.

3

c

2

1
π .H α

3

6

1

2

9

3

9

1
c

.

1
π .H α

.
. 4µ
H U5( r , M ) λ h

.
. 4µ
λh

6

2

.
. 4µ
λh
2 .µ

.

3

2 .µ

1
π .H α

2

. 2

.H ( r , M ) 5 µ
U5

6. “HU3, HU4, HU5, TU3, TU4, TU5”
H U3 R o , M G
H U4 R o , M G
H U5 R o , M G
T U3 R o , M G
T U4 R o , M G
T U5 R o , M G

H U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
H U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
H U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

= 67.084304 67.095419

T U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
T U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
T U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

= 2.724752 2.725 ( K )

67.084304 67.095419
67.084304 67.095419

2.724752 2.725
2.724752 2.725

1 . H
U4 R o , M G
H0
H U5 R o , M G

H U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
H U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
H U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

T U3 R o , M G

T U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

1 . T
U4 R o , M G
T0
T U5 R o , M G

T U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
T U3 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

H U3 R o , M G

km
.
s Mpc

5.515064 5.499409
1=

5.515064 5.499409 ( % )
5.515064 5.499409

1=

.
9.08391310

3

.
8.37394610

9

.
9.08391310

3

.
8.37394610

9

.
9.08391310

3

.
8.37394610

9

(%)

7. Time dependent characteristics
T U3( H ) K W .St T .ln

9

H H β .H α

. H5

H

T U3 H β

K W .St T .ln

1

. H .H
β α

5 .µ

2

1

1 .
d
K W .St T .ln
H β .H α
dH β

H β_min ,

2
5 .µ

H β_max H β_min
1 .10

5

0

Hβ e

2
5 .µ

.. H β_max

T U3 H β

283

H β_min

10

H β_max

1

K W .St T .ln

1

6

. H .H
β α

5 .µ

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

T U3 e

1

2
5 .µ

. 31 ( K )
= 3.19551810

2
5 .µ .

. 61
H α = 1.39858410

e

km
s .Mpc

1

e

2
5 .µ .

1

= 2.206287 10

H U2 R o , M G

42 .

s

= 7.928705 10

T U2 H α

61

T U3( 1 )

=

0

( K)

0

Computational environment initialisation value → H β2 56.4503086205567
Given
T U2 10
H β2

10

H β2

273.( K )

.H
α

H β2 = 56.450309

Find H β2

H β2

1

.H
α

.
= 1.02858610

14

10

(s)

10

H β2

H β2

1

.H
α

km
.
s Mpc

.H = 2.99992310
. 5
α

6
= 3.259461 10 .yr

T U2 10

H β2

.H
α = 273 ( K )

See Fig. 4.22, 4.23.
1
H β .H α

t

T U3 H β

1 . 1
K W .St T .
t t5

d
T U4( t )
dt

1

K W .St T .ln

µ

t1

e

1

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

2

1 . 1
K W .St T .
2
5
t
t

dT2 dt2 ( t )

µ

µ

3

d t3

T U4( t )

1

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ
5 .µ

2

µ

2

K W .St T .

. 5 .µ 2 . ln H .t . 5 .µ 2
α

ln H α .t . 5 .µ

2

2
2
5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ

1 . 1
K W .St T .
3
5
t
t

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

1

0

.t

1

2

1

10 .µ

. 5 .µ

2

1

2
2.

5 .µ

2

t

d

1 . 1
K W .St T .
5
t
t

t

1 . 1
T U4( t ) K W .St T .
2
5
d t2
t
t
d

K W .St T .

dT dt ( t )

1
T U4( t ) K W .St T .ln H α .t .
t

2

1
2
5 .µ .

2

5 .µ

. H .H
β α

µ

5 .µ

2

1

2

1

1

2

0

t2

e

2

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1
1

. 1

1

.t2

2

. 5 .µ 2 .ln H .t . 5 .µ 2 . 5 .µ 2
α

284

3

2

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

2

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

K W .St T .

1 . 1
t

3

t

µ

5

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

t3

e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 5 .µ 2 .ln H .t . 5 .µ 2 . 5 .µ 2
α

3

dT2 dt2 t 2 = 0

s

4.196153

10

2

s

6.205726

1

=

dT2 dt2 t 1

=

dT2 dt2 t 2

. 114
2.02615310

K

0

2

s

. 112
8.77595210

dT2 dt2 t 3

2

K
3

0

K

. 72
1.05719310

s

. 71
9.25283810

dT3 dt3

. 116
7.65967810

2

. 74
1.32321810

dT dt t 3

0

1

dT dt t 2

t3

dT2 dt2

2

s

dT dt t 1

42 .

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

dT3 dt3 t 3 = 0

dT dt

0.364697

t2

K
s

2.206287

2

. 1

2

1

=

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

2

2

K

dT dt t 1 = 0

t1

2

2
2
2
5 .µ .ln H α .t . 5 .µ . 5 .µ 3
2
K W .St T .
2
5 .µ . 3
t
t

dT3 dt3 ( t )

3

1
. 159
6.22716710

dT3 dt3 t 1

=

. 156
3.77545710

K

.
1.45285710

s

155

dT3 dt3 t 2

3

0

dT3 dt3 t 3

T U2 H α
T U2
T U2
T U2

1

0

t1
=

1
t2

. 31
3.19551810
( K)

. 31
3.03432210

4
. 34 ( K )
T U2 10 .H α = 7.41414610

. 31
2.83254210

1
t3

4
10 .H α

1

= 0.364697 10

46 .

s

T U2 H U2 R o , M G

= 2.724752 ( K )

See Fig. 4.24 – 4.35.

285

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U3( H ) K W .St T .ln


. 2
d
d
.H5 µ
K W .St T .ln
T U3( H )
dH
dH
H

9

. H5

H

5 .µ

. 2
d
.H5 µ K .St . H
K W .St T .ln
W T
dH
H
H
5 .µ

H
K W .St T .

d
d
T U3( H ) .
t
dH
d T U4( t )

5 .µ

5 .µ

2

H

µ

( H .t )

.

2
5 .µ .

t

µ

2

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

2

H

1

1

.µ 2

1

. 5 .ln

.µ 2

1

H
µ

2

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

5 .ln

1 . 1
t t5

1

2

H

1

t . . 5 .µ 2 . . H α . 2
(H t)
5 ln
µ
H
H

1

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

.µ 2

H

1

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

.µ 2

1

H

H

1 . 1
t t5

H

2

. 5 .ln

H

d
H
dt

µ

. 5 .ln

5 .µ

.µ 2

.µ 2

H

H

H

1 . 1
t t5

K W .St T .

. 5 .ln

. 5 .ln

2

1 . 1
K W .St T .
t t5

2

H

K W .St T .

2

d
H
dt

1

1

1

2

t

H

1

1
H γ .H α

H

5 .ln H α .

d
H
dt
H α.

dH dt H γ

1
H γ .H α

5 .µ

.
2

.

5 .ln

1
H γ .H α

.µ 2

1

1

2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

.

2
H α .H γ
d
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2
dH γ

5 .µ

1
.µ 2
.
Hγ Hα

1

1

d
dH dt H γ
dH γ

2
H α .H γ
d
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2
dH γ

.

2

2
5 .µ

. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2 . 1

5 .µ

2

1

1


2

2
5 .µ

. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2 . 1

5 .µ

2

1

0

1

Hγ e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

286

1
1

t4

e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

. 1

www.deltagroupengineering.com

dH2 dt2

d

2

d

H

d t2

2

H

d
dt

H

d t2

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

.
. 2

5µ .
( H .t )
t

5 .ln

.µ 2

1
1

H

H

d
dt

.
. 2

5µ .
( H .t )
t

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

5 .ln

1

H

2
2
5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ

.

. 2

.µ 2

5µ .2
( H .t )
t

1

5 .ln

H

d

2
H
H α.

1
H γ .H α

2
5 .µ . ln H α .

5 .µ

.
2

.

1
H γ .H α

H α .H γ
d
. 5.µ 2 . ln 1 . 5 .µ 2
2
dH γ

5 .µ

3

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

Let:

Hγ Hβ

1

1

1

2

ln

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

3
H α .H γ
. 5 .µ 2 . 5.µ 2 . 5.µ 2 .ln 1
2

5 .µ

1

1

2 .ln

t5

4

2

ln

1

1

2 .ln

1

4

2

0

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
2

.µ 2

1

2
1

1
. 5 .µ 2
.
Hγ Hα

5 .ln

2

3
H α .H γ
. 5 .µ 2 . 5 .µ 2 . 5 .µ 2 .ln 1
2

5 .µ

Hγ e

2

3
2
H α .H γ
. 5 .µ 2 . ln 1 . 5 .µ 2
2

.

dH2 dt2 H γ

.µ 2

2

H

d t2

1

e

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
1

2

. 1

η

Computational environment initialisation value → η

4.595349

Given

dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

H U2 R o , M G

η

η

1

Find( η )

287

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

t1

e

2
5 .µ .


10 .µ

t2

1

e

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

t3 e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 1

2.206287 2.206287
4.196153 4.196153

2
2

3

= 6.205726 6.205726

. 1

e

t5 e

s

8.385263 8.385263

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

42 .

20.932666 20.932666

1

t4

10

1

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 1

2

1

2

. 1

1

dH dt t 1 .H α

1

dH dt e

5 .µ

10 .µ

dH dt t 2 .H α

1

dH dt e

2

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt t 3 .H α

1

dH dt e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
3

2

1

dH dt t 4 .H α

1

dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt t 5 .H α

η = 4.595349

1

dH dt e

1

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt

. 68
7.50137510

. 68
7.50137510

. 83
9.06689310

. 83
9.06689310

= 1.22575310
. 84

. 84
1.22575310

. 84
1.55351810

. 84
1.55351810

. 84
1.38436210

. 84
1.38436210

2

Hz

2
1

H U2 R o , M G

2

η

= 4.726505 10

36 .

2

Hz

288

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

dH2 dt2 t 1 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

2
5 .µ

10 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 2 .H α

1

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 e

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 3 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

. 125
8.50679910

0

0

2

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 125
8.50679910

=

2

3

1

dH2 dt2 t 4 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 5 .H α

dH2 dt2

1

dH2 dt2 e

1

. 125
1.16257810

. 124
8.2461110

. 124
8.2461110

. 125
1.33162810

. 125
1.33162810

3

Hz

2

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

.
1.16257810

125

2

1

η

H U2 R o , M G

3

= 0 Hz

See Fig. 4.36 – 4.45.
H

d
d 1
H
dt
dt t

1
t

1
t

2

H

2

d
H
dt

H

=1
η

dH dt 1

η

dH dt 1

η

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

=

. 61
8.46094110
67.084257

km
.
s Mpc

See Fig. 4.46, 4.47.
Checking errors yields,

H

d
H
dt

( H .t )

5 .µ

.
2

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

.t

5 .ln

2

5 .µ

1

H

2

. 5 .ln

H

.µ 2

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

1 dH

H

t

1

5 .µ

2

1
dt

.t

H
5 .µ

H

2

. 5 .ln

H

5 .µ

H

2

.ln

.µ 2

H


H

5 .µ

1 dH H

2

.ln

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ


H

ln H α .t
t

5 .µ

2

t

has the solution:

H

5 .µ

2

.t

1
dt

ln H α .t
t

5 .µ

2

1
t

289

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2

η

T U2

dH dt 1

dH dt

T U3( 1 )

T U3

dH dt

e

dH dt e

dH dt

T U2

dH dt

dH dt

1

T U3 e
η

2

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

T U3 e

0
2

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

0

. 31 3.19551810
. 31
2.97174510

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

2
3

2

= 3.18632310
. 31 3.03432210
. 31 ( K )

1

. 31 2.83254210
. 31
3.18071410

η
2

5 .µ

10 .µ

1

2

T U3 e

T U3

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

η

H U2 R o , M G

1

T U2

η

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

e

( K)

T U3( 1 )

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

T U2

0 2.724752

H U2 R o , M G

2
5 .µ

10 .µ

0 2.724751

=

dH dt 1

1

T U2

η

T U2

T U2

η

H U2 R o , M G

2
3

2.724751

2.724752

2

H U2 R o , M G

η

2
5 .µ

e

1 = 7.002696 ( % )

1

T U3 e

5 .µ

2

See Fig. 4.48, 4.49.

dH dt H γ

2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln

0


t7

t 7 = 2.206287 10

=1

t1

1

.µ 2

1

Hγ e

0

2
5 .µ

1

1

42 .

s

Hγ Hβ

η

η

2
5 .µ

t7

e

2
5 .µ .

1

ln H γ

ln t 7 .H α

1

ln H β

ln t 1 .H α

1

1

1

ln t 7 .H α

1

ln t 1 .H α

1

=1

2
H α .e

e

2

1

. 5 .ln
2
5 .µ

1
5 .µ

5 .µ

2

.µ 2

. 68 Hz2
1 = 7.50137510

1

e

5 .µ

2

290

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4

2.

dH dt H γ

Hα Hγ

4 .µ

2

. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2

2.

1

5.

Hα e

1

5 .ln

5 .µ

2

1

4

Hα e

. 68 Hz2
1 = 7.50137510

1

e

2.

.µ 2

5.

5 .ln e

5 .µ

2

.µ 2

1

5 .ln

2

1 = 0 Hz

. 1
3

1
1

5.

2

1 =0

2

3

e

1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant

10
42
t 1 .10
8

Scaled Derivative (Hz^2)

6

4
dH dt H β
10

η

79
2

0
0

2

4

2.20624

2.20625

2.20626

2.20627

2.20628

2.20629

2.2063

2.20631

2.20632

η
H β .H α

1

2.20633

2.20634

2.20635

2.20636

2.20637

2.20638

.1042

Scaled Cosmological Age (s)


=

dH dt t 4 .H α

1

H U2 R o , M G
H0

=

1

=

. 123
1.47916710

71

2

km
s .Mpc

km
s .Mpc

1

2

.
1.55351810

84


dH dt

H U2 R o , M G
2

H0

291

.
3.84599410

61

1

. 84
7.51858710

=

. 61
8.46094110

=

dH dt t 4 .H α

dH dt t 4 .H α

. 123
7.15875210

67.084304


( Hz)

1

2

dH dt t 4 .H α

.
1.24640210

42

= 2.199936

dH dt t 4 .H α

. 42
2.74200410

km
.
s Mpc

2

Hz

2

t 4 .H α
2

=

= 4.839718
1

. 3
4.50030410
3
5.041.10

km
s .Mpc

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

t1

3.646967
= 22.062867

10

1

43 .

s

9
= 14.575885 10 .yr

H U2 R o , M G

209.326658

t4

A U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h .H U2 R o , M G = 1
T U2 H α
T U2 t 1

1

T U2 t 4

1

0
. 31
3.19551810
. 31
= 2.05994510
2.724752

T U2 H U2 R o , M G
T U3 H U2 R o , M G .H α

c.

( K)

t1
t4

=

6.614281

10

62.754553

34 .

m

2.724752

1

2.725

T0

t
16.326238
c . 1
=
154.899031
λh t4

c
H U2 R o , M G

9
= 14.575885 10 .Lyr

R U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h .H U2 R o , M G

=1

c

8. History of the Universe
T U2 H α = 0 ( K )

1

T U2
10
T U2

10 .

T U2

1

. 15 ( K )
= 3.43308810

31

1
13 .

1
9.

5 .10 ( yr )

( K)

1

T U2
10

T U2

(s)

1

.
= 1.92400510

28

34 .

( K)

(s)

. 9 ( K)
= 1.01325410

2.

10 ( s )
= 978.724031 ( K )

10 ( s )
T U2

.
= 3.19551810

t1

T U2

1
9.

= 11.838588 ( K )

10 ( yr )
= 4.898955 ( K )

T U2 H U2 R o , M G

292

= 2.724752 ( K )

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2

1
.
1 (s)
1

1 .( day )

T U2

T U2

1
31.( day )

T U2

T U2

1 .( yr )
1

T U2

2
10 .( yr )

1

T U2

1

1

. 7 521.528169
2.52413210

41.823796

. 4
8.07751510

11.838588

9
10 .( yr )

. 4
2.29089210

3.35005

1

. 3
6.49496110

0.947724

( K)

10 .

( yr )

1
11 .

10

1

= 1.00307810
.

1

10

=

147.71262

6

8
10 .( yr )

T U2

1
.
116 ( day )

. 6
3.86401510

1

T U2

10 ( yr )

T U2

. 10 1.84076810
. 3
1.2497710

7.

T U2

4.

6
10 .( yr )

10 ( yr )

10 ( yr )

T U2

1

T U2

3.

T U2

5.

10 ( yr )

T U2

1

1

T U2

( yr )

. 6
1.87808710
.
3.98831410

( K)

7

TL

9. “ML, rL, tL, tEGM”
5

C Ω_J1 r 1 , M 1

M1

C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

26

r1

R EGM

M 2 M 1.

26

r2

R U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

. 71 ( kg )
M L = 4.86482110

tL

5

M2

rL

rL

.
t L = 7.6372910

19

c

M EGM
2
R EGM.c

=1

t EGM

ML

.

r1

K m.M G.

M EGM

r2
r1

R EGM
K λ .R o

5 5

.

R EGM
K λ .R o

M U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

A U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

2 .G

M EGM

5 5

. 19 109 .Lyr
r L = 7.6372910

R BH M L

9
10 .yr

r2

t EGM

=1

R EGM
c

2
R EGM.c

2 .G

t EGM

R EGM
c

M L M EGM
rL

tL

R EGM t EGM

293

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ML
M EGM

. 18
5.23967510

rL

tL

= 5.23967510
. 18

R EGM

. 18
5.23967510

tL

. 6
= 1.86196810

TL

t EGM

10. Radio astronomy
9
9

9

5

M
St J .
St J .
26
r

M

M

9

M

St J .

26

St G.

St J .

9

5

5
26

5

2

St G.

9

ω Ω_3

M

M

St J .

5

2

26
9

5

.

ω Ω_3

26

St G

M

5

5

2

9

ω Ω_3

26

M

5

ω Ω_3

.

26

St G

M

5

9

2

26 9

M
M

St J .ω Ω_3

5

St J .St G

45

26

5

52

26

5

.St 5
G

M

1

.

27
5

26

5

26

.St 5
G

9

1

5
St J .ω Ω_3 .

27

M

5

26

.St 5
G
4

5
4
9 .c .ω Ω
5.
5.

Ω_3 St G M
.

3
5

.St 5
G
2

9 .c .
9
St G .St G
.

4

5

52

1

9

M
26

26 9
5
St J .ω Ω_3 .

M

5
St J .ω Ω_3 .

26

5

26
45

9 .c .
St G
4 .π
4

4
5

5

9 .c .
4 .π
4

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

ω Ω_3
4.

St G M

3

5

Ω_3

5.2

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

4
9 .c . ω Ω_3
4 .π St 0.8 .M 0.6
G

10
10
C Ω_Jω ω Ω_4 10 .M S , 10 .M S = 180.283336( nJy )

Checking errors yields,

294

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5

M

St J .

Test 1 ω Ω_3 , M

9

St G.

M

ω Ω_3

27

.M

45

9

Test 2 3 .( EHz) , M S = 5.438023 10

43 .

Jy

Test 3 3 .( EHz) , M S

Test 2 ω Ω_3 , M
Test 1 ω Ω_3 , M

C Ω_Jω 3 .( EHz) , M S = 5.438023 10

.
1 = 5.70654610

43 .

12

12

(%)

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

.
1 = 3.66373610

10
10
C Ω_Jω ω Ω_4 10 .M S , 10 .M S

(%)

Jy

.
1 = 2.0428110

Test 4 3 .( EHz) , M S

Jy

43 .

Test 2 ω Ω_3 , M

Test 5 ω Ω_3 , M

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

Test 5 3 .( EHz) , M S

5

45

2

Test 1 ω Ω_3 , M

Test 4 ω Ω_3 , M

26

45 .

ω Ω_3

Test 1 3 .( EHz) , M S = 5.438023 10

Test 3 ω Ω_3 , M

St J .St G

Test 2 ω Ω_3 , M

26

26

10
10
C Ω_J1 R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

12

(%)

= 0.999999999999968

ix. Gravitational Cosmology
G.M E G.M M
2

2

r4
r4
r5

r4

r4

r5

=

. 5
3.46028110
.
3.83719110

4

( km)

a EGM_ωΩ r 5 , M M
0 .( s ) ,

=

T PV 1 , r 4 , M E
500

a PV( r , M , t )

D E2M. M M .M E

i .

g r 4, M E
g r 5, M M

.
3.33165310

3

.
3.33165310

3

.. T PV 1 , r 4 , M E

C PV n PV, r , M .e

=

. 3
3.33165310
.
3.33165310

m
s

r5

M M .M E

MM

a EGM_ωΩ r 4 , M E

t

r 5 D E2M

3

m
s

2

g r 4, M E

r4

g r 5, M M = 0

m
s

a EGM_ωΩ r 4 , M E

2

D E2M

a EGM_ωΩ r 5 , M M = 0

2

m
s

N

21

n PV

N, 2

2

N .. N

π .n PV .ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .t .i

n PV

295

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Harmonic Acc. & Grav. Interference
T PV 1 , r 5 , M M

Acceleration

a PV r 4 , M E , t
a PV r 5 , M M , t
a PV r 4 , M E , t

a PV r 5 , M M , t

t
Time

Gravitational Acceleration due to The Earth
Gravitational Acceleration due to The Moon
Resultant Acceleration (Interference)

0

ξ

9

a g ( r , M , φ, t )

g av ( r , M )

t

0 .( s ) ,

ξ .T Ω r 5 , M M
200

.. ξ .T Ω r 5 , M M

π
g ( r , M ) . .sin 2 .π .ω Ω ( r , M ) .t
2

2
T Ω ( r, M )

φ

1.
T Ω ( r, M )
2
.
0 .( s )

g av R E, M E = 9.809009

m
s

2

a g( r, M , 0 , t ) d t

ω Ω r 4 , M E = 56.499573 ( YHz) ω Ω r 5 , M M = 72.138509( YHz)

Conjugate WaveFunction Acc. Pairs

a g r 4, M E, 0, t
Acceleration

φ

a g r 4, M E, 0, t
a g r 5, M M, π , t
a g r 5, M M, π , t

t
Time

+ve WaveFunction From The Earth
-ve WaveFunction From The Earth
+ve WaveFunction From The Moon
-ve WaveFunction From The Moon

296

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Conjugate WaveFunction Acc. Beats

Acceleration

a g r 4, M E, φ , t

a g r 5, M M, π , t

a g r 4, M E, φ , t

a g r 5, M M, π , t

t
Time

+ve WaveFunction Interference Beat
-ve WaveFunction Interference Beat (Conjugate)

x. Particle Cosmology
h

tL

m γγ
5

m γγ2

r e.

r γγ2

h

m γγ2

m gg2

tL

m γγ2

2 .m γγ2

m gg2

2

r gg2

2
m e .c

5

r γγ2

4 .r γγ2

r gg2

r γγ2

λh

λh

r γγ2

2 .r γγ2

K λ .λ h

K λ .λ h
2 .r γγ2
λh
r gg2

2 .r γγ2

0.178967

=

0.357933
0.236148

2 .r γγ2

(%)

λh

7.250508
9.567103

246.127068

2 .r gg2

0.472296

K λ .λ h

211.731798

λh

λh

2 .r gg2

E Ω ( r, M )

h .ω Ω ( r , M )

Q γ r ε, m e

N γ( r, M )

E Ω ( r, M )

= 2.655018 10

eV

38 .

m

423.463597

r gg2

2 .r gg2

10

51 .

279.381783

=

0.406294

2 .r gg2

10

3.431956

324.766614

λh
K λ .λ h

1.715978

558.763566

λh

0.307913

=

=

30

Qe

297

Q γ( r, M )

Q γ_PDG

Qe
N γ( r, M )

5 .10

30 .

Qe

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Q γ_PDG

= 1.883226

Q γγ( r , M )

Q γγ

tL

Q γ( r, M )
N γ( r, M )

2

Q γγ = 1.129394 10

Qe

m γγ

Q γγ

m γγ

T L m γγ2 Q γγ2

m γγ2

Q γγ2 = 6.065593 10

85 .

C

Q γγ2

78 .

C

Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ( r , M )

Q γγ

2

Qe

= 7.049122 10

60

Qe

.
= 1.86196810

6

= 3.785846 10

Q γγ2

66

Q γγ
m γγ

.m
γγ2

2

ω Ω r e, m e
.m
γγ
ω Ω r ε, m e

E Ω r ε,me

Qe

2

E Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r e, m e
.m
γγ
ω Ω r ε, m e

ω Ω r e, m e

2

h .m γγ

=

1.525768
1.525768

10

46 .

eV

E Ω r e, m e

2

h .m γγ

m γγ

2

=

0.165603
0.165603

( µJ )

m γγ

Qe

ω Ω r e,m e
2

E Ω r e, m e

=

249.926816
249.926816

me
( YHz)

2.

c Q γγ

=

. 11
1.7588210

C

198.286288

kg

m γγ

NOTES

298

www.deltagroupengineering.com

b. Calculation engine
i. Computational environment
NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED


Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
ii. Standard relationships
1

A0

c

r0

H0

H0

M

ρ m( r , M )

ω VL λ VL

c

9
A 0 = 13.772016 10 .yr

V( r )

2

r

M .c

E( M )

2

G.M

g( r , M )

λ VL

2 .G.M

R BH( M )

V( r )

c

4. . 3
πr
3

E γ ( ω ) h .ω

2

9
r 0 = 13.772016 10 .Lyr

iii. Derived constants
4 . 2
6
π 3

λx

3.

St G

λx

mx

3 .ω h
4 .π .h

2

. c
2

2

4

St J

10 .µ

t1

e

1

t2

e

2

t4

e

1

µ

3
1

r3

. 1

λ x.λ h

= 3.646967 10

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

245

10

5
m.s

t5

M3

43 .

St g = 1.828935

2

9

9

s

m x.m h

c.

St BH

e

6
3
3 .ω h
13 2
2 .π .c
9

c .St G
( 2 .G)

1

. 1

t3

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

ng

St T

5

1

. 1

2

mx

3
9
10 .yr

224 .

St G = 8.146982 10

2

2
3

2

. 1

1

λx

13

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2

8

.
T L = 4.10173110

e

4. 3. 1 . λ x
3 4 c5 π .λ 2
h
3

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ
1

St g

m γγ

1

1
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

h

TL

λx

9 .c .
St G
4 .π

9

1
2
5 .µ .

ωh

5

m

2. 9

kg s

299

=

t7

2.698709
1.349354

e

5 .µ

2

. 1

.
H α = 8.46094110

61

km
.
s Mpc

.
T L.H 0 = 2.97830810

12

1 . St G
G

.
1 = 3.33066910

14

(%)

St g

www.deltagroupengineering.com

146 . kg

9

St J = 1.093567 10

4 . 26

s

m

3

18

119

s

10 .

r 3 = 1.093333 10

kg

.
St BH = 4.83080210

.
M 3 = 7.36147410

ym

8

.
St T = 6.35557910
9

3

95

s

5
9

m

( kg )

1

t1

e

5 .µ

10 .µ

t2

e

2

. 1

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

t3 e

. 1

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2.206287 2.206287

2
3

2

. 1

4.196153 4.196153
=

1

t4

e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

t5 e

1

4

. 1

6.205726 6.205726

10

20.932666 20.932666

t7

42 .

s

=1

t1

8.385263 8.385263
2.206287 2.206287

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2

. 1

1

t7

e

2
5 .µ .

1

iv. Base approximations / simplifications

Ω 1( r , M )

6 .c
r .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

C Ω_1( r , M )

G.M .
2

r

T Ω_1( r , M )

3

.

3 .M .c

2
.
π n Ω_1( r , M )

ω Ω_1( r , M )

Ω 1 R M,M M

Ω 1 R E, M E

Ω R M, M M

Ω R E, M E

Ω 1 R J, M J

Ω 1 R S, M S

Ω R J, M J

Ω R S, M S

Ω R NS , M NS

n Ω_1( r , M )

2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

1

Ω 1 R NS , M NS

2

ω Ω_1( r , M )

λ Ω_1( r , M )

1=

Ω 1( r , M )
12

n Ω_1( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

c
ω Ω_1( r , M )

1

K Depp ( r , M )
1

. 14 4.44089210
.
6.66133810

14

. 14 6.66133810
.
4.44089210

14

2 .G.M
r .c

2

(%)

1 = 0 (%)

300

www.deltagroupengineering.com

n Ω_1 R M , M M

n Ω_1 R E, M E

n Ω R M,M M

n Ω R E, M E

n Ω_1 R J , M J

n Ω_1 R S , M S

n Ω R J, M J

n Ω R S, M S

n Ω_1 R NS , M NS
n Ω R NS , M NS

ω Ω_1 R E, M E

ω Ω R M,M M

ω Ω R E, M E

ω Ω_1 R J , M J

ω Ω_1 R S , M S

ω Ω R J, M J

ω Ω R S, M S

ω Ω R NS , M NS

T Ω_1 R E, M E

T Ω R M,M M

T Ω R E, M E

T Ω_1 R J , M J

T Ω_1 R S , M S

T Ω R J, M J

T Ω R S, M S

T Ω R NS , M NS

λ Ω_1 R E, M E

λ Ω R M,M M

λ Ω R E, M E

λ Ω_1 R J , M J

λ Ω_1 R S , M S

λ Ω R J, M J

λ Ω R S, M S

λ Ω R NS , M NS

.
2.22044610

14

.
4.44089210

14

.
8.88178410

14

(%)

1=

.
6.66133810

14

.
2.22044610

14

.
6.66133810

14

.
8.88178410

14

(%)

1=

.
7.77156110

14

.
2.22044610

14

.
5.55111510

14

.
7.77156110

14

.
7.77156110

14

.
2.22044610

14

.
6.66133810

14

.
7.77156110

14

(%)

1 = 0 (%)

λ Ω_1 R M , M M

λ Ω_1 R NS , M NS

14

1 = 0 (%)

T Ω_1 R M , M M

T Ω_1 R NS , M NS

.
6.66133810

1 = 0 (%)

ω Ω_1 R M , M M

ω Ω_1 R NS , M NS

1=

1=

K Depp R E, M E

1 = 0 (%)

K PV R E, M E

=

(%)

1.00000000069601
1.00000000069601

v. SBH mass and radius
3

ρS

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

r S M BH

. 94 kg
ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.34467810
3
m

3 .M BH
4 .π .ρ S

M BH r S

4. .
3
π ρ S .r S
3

. 87 ( YPa)
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.20853710

301

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r S m x.m h

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

. 90
= 9.55041510

ρ m R S, M S

0

rS MS

.
3.28046310

=

5.

r S 10 M S

1=

144.219703
.
4.21884710

(%)

13

r S mh

( am)

0.015227
0.706754

10
r S 10 .M S

r S mh
1 . r m .m
S x h
λh
λx

4

1 = 22.109851 ( % )

R BH m h

M BH r ε

M BH r π

M BH r ν

M BH r µ

. 43 3.22881910
. 49 3.18519310
. 49 3.12378410
. 43
9.27104510

M BH r τ

M BH r en

M BH r µn

M BH r τn

. 44 4.88723910
. 37 1.58452310
. 40 4.23240210
. 41
1.03305410

M BH r uq

M BH r dq

M BH r sq

M BH r cq

= 2.55332710
. 40 5.86600510
. 40 3.94279810
. 40 7.32116510
. 40

M BH r bq

M BH r tq

M BH r W

M BH r Z

. 40 4.52155110
. 40 1.19243610
. 41 6.74112410
. 40
6.91875410

M BH r H

M BH r e

M BH r Bohr

M BH r gg

. 40 1.26038310
. 51 8.34661610
. 63 1.64821910
. 9
4.68486410

( kg )

M BH r ε

M BH r π

M BH r ν

M BH r µ

. 13 1.62379510
. 19 1.60185510
. 19 1.57097210
. 13
4.66247210

M BH r τ

M BH r en

M BH r µn

M BH r τn

. 13 2.45782610
. 7
5.19529810

1 . M
BH r uq

M BH r dq

M BH r sq

M BH r cq

= 1.28408510
. 10 2.95005410
. 10 1.9828610
. 10 3.68186410
. 10

M BH r bq

M BH r tq

M BH r W

M BH r Z

. 10 2.27391910
. 10 5.99684310
. 10 3.39015710
. 10
3.47948910

M BH r H

M BH r e

M BH r Bohr

M BH r gg

. 10
2.3560510

MS

. 20
6.3385510

. 9 2.12850410
. 11
7.96867110

. 33
4.1975710

14.554628

. 6
5.06892810

R BH M BH r τn

16.217926

.
7.67248410

R BH M BH r sq

R BH M BH r cq

= 4.00847210
.

R BH M BH r tq

R BH M BH r W

R BH M BH r Z

0.010862

R BH M BH r e

R BH M BH r Bohr

R BH M BH r gg

.
7.35477510

R BH M BH r ε

R BH M BH r π

R BH M BH r ν

R BH M BH r µ

R BH M BH r τ

R BH M BH r en

R BH M BH r µn

R BH M BH r uq

R BH M BH r dq

R BH M BH r bq
R BH M BH r H

3

3

6

.
9.2090510

3

.
7.0983910

3

.
1.97867710

8

0

. 6
5.0004410

4.904034

.
2.48754410

3

0.066445

.
6.18980410

3

0.011494 ( Lyr )

0.01872

0.010583

.
1.31033610

21

0

vi. “nΩ”
1

1
3 9

n Ω_2( r , M )

n Ω_4 M BH

n BH M BH

1. 3
2

7

2

.

π .m h
M

7

9

. r
λh

n Ω_2 r S M BH , M BH

n Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

3
9

9

n Ω_3 λ x

n Ω_5 M BH

π.

3.

2

2

2

n Ω_2 R BH M BH , M BH

n Ω_2 λ x.λ h , m x.m h
n Ω_2 r S m x.m h , m x.m h
n Ω_2 λ x.λ h , m x.m h
n Ω_2 R BH m x.m h , m x.m h

302

λx

1=

.
3.33066910

13

. 14
4.44089210

(%)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

n Ω_2 r S m x.m h , m x.m h

n Ω_2 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

n Ω_2 r S M S , M S

n Ω_2 R BH M S , M S

5
5
n Ω_2 r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

5
5
n Ω_2 R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

10
10
n Ω_2 r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

10
10
n Ω_2 R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

n Ω_3
n Ω_3

1

1

.
. 24
9.00254210
3.51086810
5

=

. 6 1.93953910
. 28
1.93265910
. 7 4.1786110
. 31
1.06388810

1
3

0.248017

1

0.324994

2
=

n Ω_3( 1 )

0.515897
0.818935

n Ω_3( 2 )

1

n Ω_3 λ x

1.073108

n Ω_3( 3 )
n Ω_4 m x.m h

n Ω_5 m x.m h

n BH m x.m h

n Ω_4 M S

n Ω_5 M S

n BH M S

5
n Ω_4 10 .M S

5
n Ω_5 10 .M S

5
n BH 10 .M S

10
n Ω_4 10 .M S

10
n Ω_5 10 .M S

10
n BH 10 .M S

1
=

1

1

. 5 9.00254210
. 24 2.56419310
. 19
3.51086810
. 6 1.93953910
. 28 1.0035610
. 22
1.93265910
. 7 4.1786110
. 31 3.92767810
. 24
1.06388810

vii. “ωΩ, TΩ, λΩ”
2 .c .
n PV.
g( r, M )
2
π .r
3

ω PV2 n PV, r , M

9 M
St G .

ω Ω_7 M BH

ω PV_1 M BH

ω Ω_4 M BH

St BH.

9

5

r

ω Ω_5 M BH

1.
2
St g .g ( r , M )
r

2

1

ω Ω_3( r , M )

9

ω Ω_2( r , M )

3

9

ω Ω_3 r S M BH , M BH

ω Ω_4 M BH
n Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_6 M BH

ω BH M BH

1
M BH

ω Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH
ω Ω_5 M BH
ω Ω_4 M BH

ω Ω_6 M BH
ω Ω_7 M BH

303

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω PV2 1 , R M , M M

ω PV2 1 , R E, M E

ω PV 1 , R M , M M

ω PV 1 , R E, M E

ω PV2 1 , R J , M J

ω PV2 1 , R S , M S

ω PV 1 , R J , M J

ω PV 1 , R S , M S

ω PV2 1 , R NS , M NS
ω PV 1 , R NS , M NS

1=

.
3.14037710

9

.
6.96004310

8

.
1.9723310

6

.
2.12158610

4

1 = 7.117159 ( % )

ω PV2 n Ω R M , M M , R M , M M

ω PV2 n Ω R E, M E , R E, M E

ω Ω_3 R M , M M

ω Ω_3 R E, M E

ω PV2 n Ω R J , M J , R J , M J

ω PV2 n Ω R S , M S , R S , M S

ω Ω_3 R J , M J

ω Ω_3 R S , M S

ω PV2 n Ω R NS , M NS , R NS , M NS

ω Ω_2 R M , M M

ω Ω_2 R E, M E

ω Ω_1 R M , M M

ω Ω_1 R E, M E

ω Ω_2 R J , M J

ω Ω_2 R S , M S

ω Ω_1 R J , M J

ω Ω_1 R S , M S

ω Ω_1 R NS , M NS

1=

.
4.1871410

9

.
9.2800510

8

. 6
2.62977310

.
2.8287810

4

1=

.
1.04678510

9

.
2.32001510

8

.
6.57443310

7

.
7.07196310

5

(%)

1 = 2.491576 ( % )

ω Ω_3 R M , M M

ω Ω_3 R E, M E

ω Ω_2 R M , M M

ω Ω_2 R E, M E

ω Ω_3 R J , M J

ω Ω_3 R S , M S

ω Ω_2 R J , M J

ω Ω_2 R S , M S

1=

. 14
8.88178410

.
1.11022310

13

. 13
1.11022310

.
1.11022310

13

(%)

ω Ω_4 m x.m h
ω Ω_3 R NS , M NS
ω Ω_2 R NS , M NS

.
1 = 6.66133810

14

(%)

1
ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

.

ω Ω_5 m x.m h
ω Ω_6 m x.m h
ω Ω_7 m x.m h

ω Ω_3 r 0 , m x.m h

.
7.88327910

ω Ω_3 r 0 , M S
5
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S
10
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S

(%)

1 = 9.375146 ( % )

ω Ω_3 R NS , M NS

ω Ω_2 R NS , M NS

(%)

=

1
=

1
1
1

10

0.163994

( EHz)

2.118067
27.355887

304

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω Ω_3 r 0 , m x.m h

ω Ω_3 r 0 , m x.m h

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

ω Ω_3 r 0 , M S

ω Ω_3 r 0 , M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

5.

.
1.05183110

ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 M S

ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

10
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_3 r 0 , 10 .M S

ω VL( 400 ( nm ) )

ω VL( 750 ( nm ) )

. 3
5.29883310

. 4
3.64997710

. 4
6.84370610

ω Ω_6 m x.m h

ω Ω_7 m x.m h

ω Ω_4 M S

ω Ω_5 M S

ω Ω_6 M S

ω Ω_7 M S

5.

410.269418

.
2.82604410

ω Ω_5 m x.m h

5.

. 42 1.87219710
. 42 1.87219710
. 42 1.87219710
. 42
1.87219710
=

5.

ω Ω_4 10 M S

ω Ω_5 10 M S

ω Ω_6 10 M S

ω Ω_7 10 M S

10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_6 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_7 10 .M S

. 29 4.55727410
. 43 1.29804810
. 38 6.93112610
. 4
6.23977510
. 28 6.9805610
. 43 3.61189510
. 37
1.34431910

ω Ω_5 m x.m h

ω Ω_6 m x.m h

ω Ω_7 m x.m h

ω Ω_4 M S

ω Ω_5 M S

ω Ω_6 M S

ω Ω_7 M S

5
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

5
ω Ω_6 10 .M S

5
ω Ω_7 10 .M S

10 .

10 .

ω Ω_5 10 M S

ω BH m x.m h

ω PV_1 m x.m h

ω BH M S

ω PV_1 M S

5
ω BH 10 .M S

5
ω PV_1 10 .M S

10
ω BH 10 .M S

10
ω PV_1 10 .M S

ω Ω_4 10 M S

10 .

0.253004

14

.
6.158585 1.75414910

5

0

.
1.81667910

15

.
9.433354 4.88102410

6

0

.
14.44945 1.35817410

6

0

ω Ω_7 10 M S

1

0

1

.
7.30358710

. 33
1.8727810

13

=

=

0.253004

6

.
8.43227510

10 .

ω Ω_6 10 M S

0.253004

0.253004

( Hz)

0.693113

. 26 1.06924110
. 44 1.00503110
. 37 6.93112610
.
2.89624710

ω Ω_4 m x.m h
1 .
5
ω h ω Ω_4 10 .M S

6

3

ω Ω_4 m x.m h

5.

.
1.97218410

218.810356

=

5.

6

. 15 5.21112310
. 37
5.19263810
. 17 1.45002610
. 42
3.69181510

viii. Gravitation
r .
9
ω Ω_2( r , M )
St g

a EGM_ωΩ( r , M )

a g ( r , M , φ, t )

g av ( r , M )

MM

π
g ( r , M ) . .sin 2 .π .ω Ω ( r , M ) .t
2

2
T Ω ( r, M )

D E2M. M M .M E

r4

r5

M M .M E

D E2M r 4

φ

1.
T Ω ( r, M )
2
.
0 .( s )

a g( r, M , 0 , t ) d t

a EGM_ωΩ R M , M M

a EGM_ωΩ R E, M E

g R M,M M

g R E, M E

a EGM_ωΩ R J , M J

a EGM_ωΩ R S , M S

g R J, M J

g R S, M S

1=

.
1.49880110

12

.
1.49880110

12

.
1.5432110

12

.
1.57651710

12

305

(%)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

a EGM_ωΩ R NS, M NS

.
1 = 1.65423210

g R NS, M NS
g r 4, M E
g r 5, M M

=

. 3
3.33165310

m

. 3
3.33165310

a EGM_ωΩ r 4 , M E

=

a EGM_ωΩ r 5 , M M

g av R E, M E = 9.809009

s

r5

=

. 5
3.46028110
. 4
3.83719110

g r 5, M M = 0

.
3.33165310

3

m
s

a EGM_ωΩ r 4 , M E

2

( km)

m
s

3

s

r4

( %)

g r 4, M E

2

.
3.33165310

m

12

2

m

a EGM_ωΩ r 5 , M M = 0

s

2

ω Ω r 4 , M E = 56.499573 ( YHz) ω Ω r 5 , M M = 72.138509 ( YHz)

2

ix. Flux intensity
5

r ω ω Ω_3 , M

St G.

M

2

ω Ω_3

C Ω_J ( r , M )

9

2 d
λ Ω ( r , M ) . U m( r , M )
dr

5

C Ω_J1( r , M )

St J .

M

5.2

9

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

26

r

9

r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

=

r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

r ω ( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h
1 . ω VL
r 0 r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

0.239057
0.741144

=

( Lyr)

.
1.73581410

11

.
5.38152510

11

r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , M S

r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , M S

5
r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

5
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

10
r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

10
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , M S

1 . r 30.( PHz) , 105 .M
ω
S
r0
10
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

5
. 5
2.2445.10 6.95860210

= 2.2445.107 6.95860210
. 7

r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , M S

1 . r ω ( 400 ( nm ) ) , 105 .M
ω VL
S
r0
10
r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm) ) , 10 .M S
r ω 30.( PHz) , M S

4
9 .c . ω Ω_3
4 .π St 0.8 .M 0.6
G

5
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S
10
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

r ω 30.( EHz) , M S
5
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S
10
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

9
10 .Lyr

9
. 9
2.2445.10 6.95860210

. 4 5.05271110
. 4
1.62975410
= 1.62975410
. 6 5.05271110
. 6
. 8 5.05271110
. 8
1.62975410

21.2751776034345 8.46980075872643.10

5

= 2.12751776034345
.103 8.46980075872643.10

3

.105
2.12751776034345

306

0.846980075872643

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r ω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h

=

r ω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h

. 6
2.95234410

r 30.( PHz) , m x.m h
1 . ω
r 0 r ω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h

3
10 .km

11.753495

r ω 30.( PHz) , M S

r ω 30.( EHz) , M S

5
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

5
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

10
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

10
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

r ω 30.( PHz) , M S
1 . r 30.( PHz) , 105 .M
ω
S
r0
10
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

. 5
2.93002110
= 2.93002110
.

7

5
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S
10
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

.
21.275178 8.46980110

5

= 2.12751810
. 3 8.46980110
.

3

. 5
2.12751810

0.84698

C Ω_J 100.( km) , M M

C Ω_J R S , M M

C Ω_J 100.( km) , M E
C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M J

.
2.95903310

6

.
9.40034410

4

1=

C Ω_J 100.( km) , M J

C Ω_J1 R S , M E
C Ω_J R S , M E
C Ω_J1 R S , M J

(%)

C Ω_J1 R S , M S

0.979587

C Ω_J 100.( km) , M S

C Ω_J R S , M S

C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M NS

C Ω_J1 R S , M NS

C Ω_J 100.( km) , M NS

C Ω_J R S , M NS

C Ω_Jω ω VL( 400 ( nm) ) , m x.m h
C Ω_J1 r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h , m x.m h
C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h , m x.m h
C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , M S
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , M S , M S

C Ω_Jω ω VL( 750 ( nm) ) , m x.m h
C Ω_J1 r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h , m x.m h
C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h , m x.m h
C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , M S
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , M S , M S

5
C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

5
C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

5
5
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

5
5
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

10
C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

10
C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

10
10
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

10
10
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

C Ω_J1 r 0 , m x.m h

10
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S

1=

.
3.57491810

12

.
4.23150410

10

.
1.35061710

7

.
1.41439110

4

.
1.41439110

4

(%)

.
1.90958410

12

.
1.92068610

12

.
1.9428910

12

.
1.93178810

12

.
1.58761910

12

.
1.59872110

12

.
1.50990310

12

.
1.50990310

12

.
1.48769910

12

.
1.50990310

12

(%)

0

C Ω_J1 r 0 , M S
5
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S

1=

C Ω_J R S , M J

0.979587

C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M S

0

6
10 .Lyr

116.646228

C Ω_J1 R S , M M

8

14

1.166462

C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M M

.
3.63872410

.
2.2659710

. 9 1.16646210
. 4
2.93002110

r ω 30.( EHz) , M S

C Ω_J1 100.( km) , M E

=

=

.
1.48429110

5

.
8.89809310

3

10

20 .

yJy

5.334267

307

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1
C Ω_J1 r 0 , m x.m h

. 26
2.24315810

1

10
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S .

C Ω_J1 r 0 , M S

= 3.59381410
. 5
599.48425

1
5
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S

C Ω_Jω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

=

C Ω_Jω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

28.979765
1.102778

10

16 .

yJy

C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h = 2.479532 ( fJy )

7
C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h = 6.228302 10 .yJy

C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , M S
5.

2.164916

C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , 10 M S

.
= 2.16491610

3

10
C Ω_Jω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

.
2.16491610

6

C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , M S
5.

10

29 .

10

14 .

yJy

8.618686

C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , 10 M S

.
= 8.61868610

3

10
C Ω_Jω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

.
8.61868610

6

10
10
C Ω_Jω ω Ω_4 10 .M S , 10 .M S
10
10
C Ω_J1 R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

yJy

= 0.999999999999968

x. Photon and Graviton populations
ω g( M )

M .c
2 .h

2

n gg ( M )

ω g m x.m h

. 18
4.99252510

ωg MS

. 56
1.34855310

5
ω g 10 .M S
10
ω g 10 .M S

=

. 61
1.34855310

T L.ω g ( M )

n γγ( M )

2 .n gg ( M )

( YHz)

. 66
1.34855310

308

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ω g m x.m h
ω Ω_4 m x.m h

ω g m x.m h
ω Ω_5 m x.m h

ωg MS

ωg MS

2.666667

50

ω Ω_5 M S

. 36
2.95912210

. 57
1.0031510

5
ω g 10 .M S

. 63
4.65620810

5
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

2.666667

ω Ω_4 M S

.
2.1612210

=

5
ω g 10 .M S
5
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

=

. 46
1.26122510

10
ω g 10 .M S

10
ω g 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

n gg m x.m h

. 72
6.46222510

n γγ m x.m h

n gg M S

. 110
1.7455410

n γγ M S

. 115
1.7455410

5
n γγ 10 .M S

. 120
1.7455410

10
n γγ 10 .M S

=

5
n gg 10 .M S
10
n gg 10 .M S

. 41
1.93186910

. 73
1.29244510
. 110
3.4910810

=

. 115
3.4910810
. 120
3.4910810

xi. Hubble constant and CMBR temperature
r 2( r )

K λ .r

K m.M

M 2( M )

5

5

K U( r , M )

A U( r , M )

1

ln

9

2

7

.ln n
Ω_2 r 2( r ) , M 2( M )

TL
K U( r , M )

R U( r , M )

5

K T( r , M )

n g .ln

T U( r , M )

K T( r , M ) .T W ( r , M )

M U( r , M )

H U5( r , M )

T U5( r , M )

KW
c

µ

( 3 .π )

7 .µ .

256

µ

32

2

.
.ln
. 4µ
H U5( r , M ) λ h

2 .µ

.

r3

1
π .H α

H U( r , M )

1
A U( r , M )

KW
λ Ω_1 R U( r , M ) , M 3
3 .H U( r , M )

2

8 .π .G

K W .St T .ln

T U2( H )

. µ m
.ln ( 3 π ) . h
4
M

9

r 2( r )

c .A U( r , M )

ρ U( r , M )

V R U( r , M ) .ρ U( r , M )

.

M 2( M )

T W( r, M )

H U( r , M )

1 .
ln
TL

M3

3.

26

9

µ

. 2

.H5 µ

H
7 .µ

2

. r
λh
2 .µ

2

2
7 .µ

5

.

mh
M

5 .µ

2

. r
λh

2
26 .µ

. 2

.H ( r , M ) 5 µ
U5

309

www.deltagroupengineering.com

K W .St T .

dT dt ( t )

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

t

5 .µ

2

1

K W .St T .

dT2 dt2 ( t )

2
2
5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ

.t

t

dT3 dt3 ( t )

2
2
2
5 .µ .ln H α .t . 5 .µ . 5 .µ 3
2
K W .St T .
2
5 .µ . 3
t
t

dH dt H γ

2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

5 .µ

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 H γ

1

5 .µ

2

1

2

1

.t2

2

2

3
2
H α .H γ
. 5 .µ 2 . ln 1 . 5 .µ 2
2

5 .µ

1

2

1

Given
T U2 H U r x1.R o , M G
T U2 H U R o , m g1 .M G

T U2 H U r x2.R o , M G
T U2 H U R o , m g2 .M G

∆T 0

T0

T0

∆T 0

r x1
r x2
m g1

Find r x1, r x2, m g1 , m g2

m g2

Given
T U2 H U r x1.R o , m g1 .M G
T U2 H U r x1.R o , m g2 .M G

∆T 0

T0

T U2 H U r x2.R o , m g1 .M G
T U2 H U r x2.R o , m g2 .M G

T0

∆T 0

r x3
r x4
m g3

Find r x1, r x2, m g1 , m g2

m g4

Given
T U2 H U r x1.R o , m g1 .M G
r x5
m g5

T0

Find r x1, m g1

T U2 H U R o
T U2 H U R o

1
∆R o , .K m.M G
3
1
∆R o , .K m.M G
3

r x1
=

2.733025
2.741859

r x2

( K)

m g1
m g2

310

0.989364
=

1.017883
1.057292
0.911791

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2 H U r x1.R o , M G
T U2 H U r x2.R o , M G
T U2 H U R o , m g1 .M G
T U2 H U R o , m g2 .M G

2.724
=

2.726
2.724

m g3

7.914908
8.143063

( kpc )

1.063645 5.729219
1.788292

=

(%)

8.820858

2.724
2.726

( K)

0.977007

r x3

=

r x4

r x5

7.879647
8.106786

T U2 H U r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

1.052361

MG

. 11
M G m g3
5.8620410
.
=
M S m g4
. 11
5.8620410

( kpc )

1.013403

=

m g5

m g5 .

=

T U2 H U r x3.R o , m g3 .M G
T U2 H U r x4.R o , m g4 .M G

0.977007

m g4

R o.

1=

r x2 m g2

1.013348

=

r x2

r x1 m g1

0.984956

r x4

r x1

2.726

. 11
M G m g1
6.34375310
.
=
M S m g2
. 11
5.47074910
r x3

R o.

( K)

r x5

. 11
= 6.31416710

m g5

MS

1=

r x3 m g3
r x4 m g4

5.236123

( %)

1.50441 2.29934
1.334822 2.29934

( %)

r x5.R o = 8.107221 ( kpc )

= 2.725 ( K )

1.340256

1=

H U r x5.R o , m g5 .M G = 67.095419

km
.
s Mpc

Given

dH dt

H U R o,M G

η

1

H U R o,M G

η

Find( η )

9
A U R o , M G = 14.575885 10 .yr

ρ U R o , M G = 8.453235 10

33 .

9
R U R o , M G = 14.575885 10 .Lyr

kg
3

.
M U R o , M G = 9.28458610

52

( kg )

cm
H U R o,M G
1
H U R o , .M G
3

=

67.084304
67.753267

km
.
s Mpc

T U R o,M G
1
T U R o , .M G
3

311

=

2.724752
2.739618

( K)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

H U R o,M G

T U R o,M G

H0

T0

H U R o,M G

T U R o,M G

1
H U R o , .M G
3

1
T U R o , .M G
3

T U2 H U R o

.
5.515064 9.08391310
0.987352

3

(%)

0.542607

∆R o , M G
2.720213

T U2 H U R o , M G
T U2 H U R o

1=

2.724752

∆R o , M G

H U5 R o , M G
H U5 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

= 2.729021 ( K )

1
T U2 H U R o , .M G
3

2.739618

=

67.084304

km

67.095419

s .Mpc

2.810842

T U2 H 0

H U5 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G
T U5 R o , M G
T U5 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

=

2.724752
2.725

H0

( K)

1=

T U5 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

5.499409
.
8.3739910

9

(%)

T0

T U2 H α
T U2 t 1

dT dt

0

1

.
3.19551810

31

T U2 t 2

1

T U2 t 3

1

T U2 t 4

1

. 31
2.05994510

T U2 t 5

1

. 31
2.65086510

dT2 dt2

.
3.03432210
.
2.83254210

dT2 dt2 t 2

. 114
2.02615310

dT2 dt2 t 3
dT2 dt2 t 4
dT2 dt2 t 5

0
.
8.77595210

112

s

dT3 dt3 t 3

. 112
1.612210

dT3 dt3 t 4

. 112
7.1945910

dT3 dt3 t 5

312

s

1
. 159
6.22716710

dT3 dt3 t 2

2

.
9.25283810

. 71
7.47950610

. 156
3.77545710

dT3 dt3 t 1
K

K

. 71
3.03728910

dT dt t 5

dT3 dt3

. 72
1.05719310
71

dT dt t 4

. 116
7.65967810

=

=

dT dt t 3

1

dT2 dt2 t 1

0

dT dt t 2

( K)

31

. 74
1.32321810

dT dt t 1

31

=

1

=

. 155
1.45285710

K

0

s

3

. 153
1.48902210
. 153
9.53337910

www.deltagroupengineering.com

dH dt ( 1 )

dH dt e

0
1

dH dt t 1 .H α

1

dH dt e

5 .µ

10 .µ

dH dt t 2 .H α

1

dH dt e

2

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt t 3 .H α

1

dH dt e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

=

2
3

2

1

dH dt t 4 .H α

1

dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt t 5 .H α

1

dH dt e

1

dH2 dt2 e

. 123
7.15875210

. 107
7.14236410

. 107
7.14236410

. 122
8.63295710

. 122
8.63295710

. 123
1.16708910

. 123
1.16708910

. 123
1.47916710

. 123
1.47916710

. 123
1.31810810

. 123
1.31810810

km
s .Mpc

2

2

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 ( 1 )

. 123
7.15875210

1

2

0
1

dH2 dt2 t 1 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

5 .µ

10 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 2 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

2

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 3 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

=

2
3

2

1

dH2 dt2 t 4 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 5 .H α

dH dt

1

H U R o,M G

dH2 dt2 e

1

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

η

. 3
= 4.50029710

km
.
s Mpc

. 186
1.27869510

. 186
1.27869510

. 184
2.49929710

. 184
2.49929710

0

0

.
3.41565310

.
3.41565310

. 183
2.42270610

. 183
2.42270610

. 183
3.91232210

. 183
3.91232210

183

183

km
s .Mpc

3

2
1

2

2

dH2 dt2

H U R o,M G

η

=0

km
.
s Mpc

3

=1
η

dH dt 1

313

www.deltagroupengineering.com

η

dH dt 1

η

1

dH dt e

5 .µ

10 .µ

2

η

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt e

. 61
2.55267410
η

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

km
.
s Mpc

. 60
4.13447210
. 60
9.11289510

1

67.084257
η
4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt

= 1.16926910
. 61

2

3

η

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt e

. 61
1.59787310

2

1

dH dt e

. 61
8.46094110

1

2
1

H U R o,M G

2

η

. 61
8.46094110

dH dt t 4 .H α

1

. 61
= 3.84599410
67.084304

H U R o,M G

dH dt t 4 .H α

km
s .Mpc

H U R o,M G

71

H0

2

2

H0

. 123
7.15875210
1
2

=

. 123
1.47916710
. 3
4.50030410

km
s .Mpc

2

3
5.041.10

1
H α.

dH dt t 4 .H α

1

=


dH dt t 4 .H α

2.199936
4.839718

1

314

www.deltagroupengineering.com

η

T U2

dH dt 1

η

1

T U2

5 .µ

dH dt e

10 .µ

T U2

2

η

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt e

. 31
2.97174510
η

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

T U2

2

dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

T U2

2.724751
η
2

2
3

2

η

H U R o,M G

dH dt

. 31
3.18071410

1

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt e

. 31
2.72300610

η

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

T U2

= 3.18071410
. 31 ( K )

2

3

1

T U2

. 31
3.18632310

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt e

0

1


η

1

1
T U2 t 1

1

.T
U2

dH dt e

5 .µ

10 .µ

1
T U2 t 2

1

.T
U2

dH dt e

2

η

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

η

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

1
T U2 t 3

1

.T
U2

dH dt e

1

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

3

1
T U2 t 4

η

1

.T
U2

dH dt e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

T U2 t 5

.T
U2

1
T U2 H U R o , M G

dH dt e

.T
U2

(%)

32.18827
.
3.90264410

5

η
2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt

12.291857
19.987768

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

1

5.00939

2

1=
1

1

7.002696

2

2
3

2

H U R o,M G

η

315

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2 H α

1

T U2

13 .

10 ( s )
1

T U2
10

10

10 .

(s)

1

T U2

1

T U2

1
.
31 ( day )

T U2
T U2

1 .( yr )
1

T U2

2
10 .( yr )

1

T U2

3.

1

. 9
1.01325410

2.724752

( K)

1

1
6.

10 ( yr )

. 10 1.84076810
. 3
1.2497710

1

. 7 521.528169
2.52413210

7.

. 6
3.86401510

147.71262

= 1.00307810
. 6

41.823796

. 4
8.07751510

11.838588

9
10 .( yr )

.
2.29089210

3.35005

1

.
6.49496110

0.947724

1
8
10 .( yr )

1

=

1

3

( yr )

11 .

10

1
116.( day )

4

( K)

1

T U2

4.

T U2

4.898955

5.

10

10 ( yr )
T U2

. 15
3.43308810

10 .

10 ( yr )
T U2

9
5 .10 .( yr )

10 ( yr )

1

T U2

11.838588

10 ( yr )

1 .( day )

T U2

1

T U2

1 .( s )
1

T U2

=

T U2 H U R o , M G

2
10 .( s )

T U2

T U2

T U2

.
1.92400510

28

9
10 .( yr )

(s)

1

T U2

T U2

34 .

978.724031

0

1

T U2

( yr )

. 6
1.87808710
.
3.98831410

7

( K)

TL

xii. SBH temperature
Th

T BH( M )

Th

( 4 .π )

.
2

mh
M

. 30 ( K )
= 1.66667410

2
8 .π .λ x

4

T SPBH

.
1. mh c
κ h .ω h

2

c.
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
σ

=

. 32
3.55137410
. 32
3.55137410

T BH m x.m h

. 30 ( K )
T BH m x.m h = 1.66667410

h .c

( K)

=1

3

2
16.π .κ .G.m x.m h

10
T BH 10 .M S

h .c

3

T U2
=1

1
t1

T BH m x.m h

T U2
= 19.173025

1
t1

6 .π .T BH m x.m h

1 = 1.716054 ( % )

2
10
16.π .κ .G.10 .M S

316

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T U2

1
t1

3 .T h

T SPBH

. 31 ( K )
T SPBH = 5.02766910

1 = 1.716054 ( % )

T BH m x.m h

= 30.165887

4 .π .λ x

T SPBH
T U2

. 31 ( K )
K ω T SPBH = 3.20071410

= 1.57335

1

T U2

t1
4

.

π

T U2

3
K ω .T SPBH

3.

1

6 .c
. 31 ( K )
= 3.20071410
π .σ .G

t1

2 K
W
.c .
5 G.κ

1 . 15 .
h .c
λ x 4 .π κ .K W

15 .
h .c
= 2.659782
4 .π κ .K W

1 = 0.248248 ( % )

1 = 1.442436 ( % )

T BH m e

T BH m p

T BH m n

T BH m µ

T BH m τ

T BH m en

T BH m µn

T BH m τn

T BH m uq

T BH m dq

T BH m sq

T BH m cq

T BH m bq

T BH m tq

T BH m W

T BH m Z

T BH m H
T SPBH

=

t1

2
c . KW
. 31 ( K )
= 3.18758510
5 G.κ

3

1

1 = 0.162602 ( % )

1

. 47
6.01617410
. 31
5.02766910

. 53 7.33529610
. 49 7.32519910
. 49 6.51392110
. 50
1.34687210
=

. 49 2.29416810
. 58 3.6223710
. 53 3.78159510
. 51
3.87312710
. 52 9.81839510
. 51 6.04208910
. 50 5.81830810
. 49
1.96367910

( K)

. 49 3.8570310
. 47 8.55766610
. 47 7.54763110
. 47
1.67121610

( K)

xiii. ZPF
Ω EGM

ρ U r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

3 .c .
Ω ZPF .
H U R o,M G
8 .π .G
2

U ZPF
Ω EGM
Ω PDG

Ω PDG

ρ U R o,M G

= 0.997339

U ZPF = 251.778016

U ZPF = 842.934914

yJ
3

2

Ω ZPF

1.003

.
Ω ZPF = 3.31400710

4

U ZPF = 251.778016( fPa )

U ZPF = 2.51778 10

13 .

U ZPF = 0.251778

mJ

U ZPF = 251.778016

3

km

EJ

. 12
U ZPF = 7.39723510

AU

Ω EGM

Ω EGM = 1.000331

mm

3

1

fJ
3

m

YJ
pc

317

Pa

3

www.deltagroupengineering.com

. 41
U ZPF = 6.60189810

YJ
R U R o,M G

3

xiv. Cosmological limits
M U R o,M G

M EGM

ML

R EGM

K m.M G.

K λ .R o

R U R o,M G

R EGM
5 5

.

R EGM

rL

K λ .R o

. 71 ( kg )
M L = 4.86482110

t EGM

R BH M L

. 19 109 .Lyr
r L = 7.6372910

A U R o,M G

rL

tL

c

. 19 109 .yr
t L = 7.6372910

ML
M EGM

M EGM
2
R EGM.c

t EGM

=1

2 .G

. 18
5.23967510

rL

=1

R EGM

R EGM

c

tL

tL

= 5.23967510
. 18

. 6
= 1.86196810

TL

. 18
5.23967510

t EGM

xv. Particle Cosmology
5

m γγ2

h
tL

E Ω ( r, M )

m gg2

h .ω Ω ( r , M )

Q γ r ε, m e

Q γ_PDG

5 .10

2 .m γγ2

r γγ2

N γ( r, M )

Q γγ ( r , M )

30 .

Qe

r e.

m γγ2
m e .c

m gg2

1.715978
3.431956

4 .r γγ2

5

Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ

N γ( r, M )

=

r gg2

2

E Ω ( r, M )

Q γ( r, M )

m γγ2

2

10

318

51 .

eV

Qe
N γ( r, M )

2

Qe

Q γγ2

r γγ2
r gg2

Q γγ
m γγ

=

.m
γγ2

7.250508
9.567103

10

38 .

m

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r γγ2

λh

λh

r γγ2

2 .r γγ2

K λ .λ h

K λ .λ h

2 .r γγ2

0.178967

2 .r γγ2
λh

=

r gg2

0.357933
0.236148

558.763566

λh

0.307913

324.766614

2 .r γγ2

(%)

279.381783

=

λh

423.463597

λh

0.406294

r gg2

246.127068

2 .r gg2

0.472296

K λ .λ h

211.731798

K λ .λ h

2 .r gg2

2 .r gg2

λh

λh

2 .r gg2

= 2.655018 10

Q γ_PDG

30

Qe

Q γγ

Q γγ = 1.129394 10

= 1.883226

= 7.049122 10

m γγ

60

Qe

.
= 1.86196810

6

Q γγ2

Q γγ2 = 6.065593 10

m γγ2

= 3.785846 10

ω Ω r e, m e
.m
γγ
ω Ω r ε, m e

Qe

E Ω r e, m e

2

C

85 .

C

2

E Ω r ε, m e

66

78 .

=

1.525768
1.525768

10

46 .

eV

ω Ω r e,m e
=

0.165603
0.165603

( µJ )

2

=

h .m γγ

m γγ

249.926816
249.926816

( YHz)

Qe
me
2.

c Q γγ

=

. 11
1.7588210

C

198.286288

kg

m γγ

319

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

320

www.deltagroupengineering.com

MathCad 12
c. High precision calculation engine
i. Computational environment

NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED


Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 10-14.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 10-14.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
ii. Astronomical statistics

H0 := 71⋅ 



 s ⋅ Mpc 

∆H0 := 2⋅ 



 s ⋅ Mpc 

km

km

∆T0 := 0.001( K)

T0 := 2.725⋅ ( K)

H0 − ∆H0 = 69 



 s ⋅ Mpc 
km

T0 + ∆T0 = 2.726( K)

iii. Derived constants

µ :=

λx := 4⋅

1

2⋅ µ
µ

π

3

Stt := 2⋅ ωh ⋅ 
4


 µ
 3⋅ π 
2

7

⋅ 

2

Hα :=

ωh

TL :=

λx

h
mγγ

9


c

iv. Algorithm
7⋅ µ


2
2
2
2
2

5⋅ µ
7⋅ µ µ
µ m µ
7⋅ µ 
26⋅ µ 
m


(
)
(
)
1
 h
 3⋅ π ⋅ 32 ⋅ ln 3⋅ π ⋅  h  ⋅  r 

 r 
HU5( r , M) :=
⋅ ln
 4  M   λ   ⋅  M  ⋅  λ 

TL 
256

 h 
 h



H
(
r
,
M
)
 U5

KT ( r , M) := 8⋅ µ ⋅ ln

TU( r , M ) := KT ( r , M ) ⋅ TW( r , M )

TW( r , M) :=

KW

c

HU5 ( r , M)

λΩ 

,

λx
2

⋅ mh 

 Hα  9
5
 ⋅ Stt ⋅ H
 H 

TU2( H) := KW⋅ ln

 HU5( Ro , MG)   67.084134  km 

=


 HU5( Ro , µ ⋅ M G)   67.753095  s ⋅ Mpc 

 TU( Ro , MG)   2.724749

=
 ( K)
 TU( Ro , µ ⋅ MG)   2.739614

 HU5( Ro , M G) 
 −2.776618 ( %)
 −1=

H0 − ∆H0  HU5( Ro , µ ⋅ MG) 
 −1.807108
1

5

 TU( Ro , M G) 
 −0.045904 ( %)
 −1=

T0 + ∆T0  TU( Ro , µ ⋅ MG) 
 0.499413 
1

⋅

321

⋅

www.deltagroupengineering.com

 TU2( H0 − ∆H0) 


TU2( H0)



∆H


 TU2 H0 + 0  
2 

 2.767146
=  2.810842 ( K)


 2.832481

 H0 − ∆H0

 H0

∆H
 H0 + 0
2






 69 
km 
=  71  
   s ⋅ Mpc 
 72 

d. Various forms of the derived constants

 4 ⋅

 6π

 4⋅ µ ⋅



π   2.698709 2.698709
 =

6
2⋅ µ   2.698709 2.698709
4⋅
µ
µ 
π
π 
2

4

3

3

6

µ

6
2
1
 ⋅  1  ⋅  4⋅ µ  
 c3  π⋅ Hα   λh  


7
9

4  2   2 
2⋅ ωh ⋅  µ  ⋅  c  


 3⋅ π 

5
7 
 1 ⋅ 4  ⋅ 2  
 4  c   µ  
 3⋅ π  
 λh

 6.355579× 1095 

 5 
s 

= 6.355579× 1095  

 9
 6.355579× 1095   m 

NOTES

322

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Bibliography 2
[1] Particle Data Group, Photon Mass-Energy Threshold: “S. Eidelman et Al.” Phys. Lett. B 592, 1
(2004): http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s000.pdf
[2] The SELEX Collaboration, Measurement of the Σ - Charge Radius by Σ- - Electron Elastic
Scattering, Phys.Lett. B522 (2001) 233-239: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0106053v2
[3] “Karmanov et. Al.”, On Calculation of the Neutron Charge Radius, Contribution to the Third
International Conference on Perspectives in Hadronic Physics, Trieste, Italy, 7-11 May 2001, Nucl.
Phys. A699 (2002) 148-151: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106349v1
[4] “P. W. Milonni”, The Quantum Vacuum – An Introduction to Quantum ElectroDynamics,
Academic Press, Inc. 1994. Page 403.
[5] Mathworld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Euler-MascheroniConstant.html
[6] “Hirsch et. Al.”, Bounds on the tau and muon neutrino vector and axial vector charge radius,
Phys. Rev. D67: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210137v2
[7] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): http://Physics.nist.gov/cuu/
[8] The D-ZERO Collaboration, A Precision Measurement of the Mass of the Top Quark, Nature
429 (2004) 638-642: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0406031v1
[9] Progress in Top Quark Physics (Evelyn Thomson): Conference proceedings for PANIC05,
Particles & Nuclei International Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA), October 24 – 28, 2005.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0602024v1
[10] Combination of CDF and D0 Results on the Mass of the Top Quark, Fermilab-TM-2347-E,
TEVEWWG/top 2006/01, CDF-8162, D0-5064: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0603039v1
[11] “Hammer and Meißner et. Al”., Updated dispersion-theoretical analysis of the nucleon
ElectroMagnetic form factors, Eur. Phys.J. A20 (2004) 469-473:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312081v3
[12] “Hammer et. Al”, Nucleon Form Factors in Dispersion Theory, invited talk at the Symposium
"20 Years of Physics at the Mainz Microtron MAMI", October 20-22, 2005, Mainz, Germany,
HISKP-TH-05/25: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602121v1
[13] Spectrum of the Hydrogen Atom, University of Tel Aviv.
http://www.tau.ac.il/~phchlab/experiments/hydrogen/balmer.htm
[14] The CDF & D0 Collaborations, W Mass & Properties, FERMILAB-CONF-05-507-E.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0511039v1
[15] The L3 Collaboration, Measurement of the Mass and the Width of the W Boson at LEP, Eur.
Phys.J. C45 (2006) 569-587: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0511049v1
[16] The ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD Collaborations, the LEP Electroweak Working Group,
the SLD Electroweak & Heavy Flavor Groups, Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z
Resonance, CERN-PH-EP/2005-041, SLAC-R-774: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0509008v3
[17] The ZEUS Collaboration, Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and finite
Quark radius in ep collisions at HERA, Phys. Lett. B591 (2004) 23-41:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0401009v2
[18] “James William Rohlf”, Modern Physics from α to Z, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1994.
[19] http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/astrorpp.pdf
[20] http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-2/mass.html
[21] http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/hubblerpp.pdf (pg. 20 - “WMAP + All”).

323

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Periodic Table of the Elements

324

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Cosmological Evolution Process

Figure 2.4,

325

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Figure 2.5,

326

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

327

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

328

www.deltagroupengineering.com

90000
ID: 1540406
www.lulu.com

9 781847 993137

Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering - Part 2

ISBN 978-1-84799-313-7