You are on page 1of 421

QUINTA ESSENTIA

A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering

PART 4
“THE DERIVATION OF THE HUBBLE
CONSTANT & THE COSMIC
MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
RADIATION (CMBR) TEMPERATURE”
“To my parents”
RESEARCH NOTES
Key Words: Big-Bang, CMBR, Cosmological Evolution / Expansion / History / Inflation, Dark
Energy / Matter, Gravitation, Hubble constant.

2nd Edition
Project Initiated: October 13, 2005
Project Completed: April 14, 2007
Revised: Thursday, 24 November 2011
RICCARDO C. STORTI1

www.deltagroupengineering.com
1

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

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Preface
This text is a compilation of research notes and a companion to “Quinta Essentia - Part 3”,
extending 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 “Part 3”, to
obtain a full appreciation of the EGM method.
“Part 3” 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.
“Part 4” utilises the principles of mass-energy distribution and similitude by ZPF equilibria
developed in “Part 3”, 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 tight
tolerance 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 “Part 3”, 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” and “4.6(%) Atoms”.
3

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Table of Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Scientific Achievements .............................................................................................................. 23
1

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 25

1.1
The natural philosophy of the Cosmos ............................................................................... 25
1.1.1
Objectives and scope................................................................................................... 25
1.1.2
How are these objectives achieved? ............................................................................ 25
1.1.2.1 Synopsis................................................................................................................. 25
1.1.2.2 Derivation process.................................................................................................. 26
1.1.2.2.1 Hubble constant “HU” ...................................................................................... 26
1.1.2.2.2 CMBR temperature “TU” ................................................................................. 27
1.1.2.2.3 “HU → HU2, TU → TU2 → TU3” ........................................................................ 28
1.1.2.2.4 Rate of change “dHdt” ...................................................................................... 29
1.1.3
Sample results............................................................................................................. 30
1.1.3.1 Numerical evaluation and analysis.......................................................................... 30
1.1.3.1.1 Cosmological properties................................................................................... 30
1.1.3.1.2 Significant temporal ordinates .......................................................................... 32
1.1.3.2 Graphical evaluation and analysis........................................................................... 33
1.1.3.2.1 Average Cosmological temperature vs. age ...................................................... 33
1.1.3.2.2 Magnitude of the Hubble constant vs. Cosmological age .................................. 34
1.1.3.2.3 Cosmological evolution process ....................................................................... 35
1.1.4
History of the Universe according to EGM ................................................................. 36
1.1.5
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 38
1.1.5.1 Conceptualization................................................................................................... 38
1.1.5.1.1 “λx”.................................................................................................................. 38
1.1.5.1.2 “TL” ................................................................................................................. 38
1.1.5.1.3 “CΩ_J” .............................................................................................................. 38
1.1.5.1.4 “Stω” ................................................................................................................ 39
1.1.5.2 Dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity......................................................... 39
1.1.5.2.1 “HU” ................................................................................................................ 39
1.1.5.2.2 “TU”................................................................................................................. 40
1.1.6
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................... 40
1.2
Fundamentals .................................................................................................................... 42
1.2.1
General Relativity (GR) .............................................................................................. 42
1.2.2
Black-Holes (BH’s) .................................................................................................... 43
1.2.3
Quantum Mechanics (QM).......................................................................................... 44
1.2.4
Particle-Physics .......................................................................................................... 45
1.2.4.1 Synopsis................................................................................................................. 45
1.2.4.2 Subatomic particles ................................................................................................ 45
1.2.4.3 History ................................................................................................................... 45
1.2.4.4 Standard Model (SM)............................................................................................. 46
1.2.4.5 Experiment............................................................................................................. 46
1.2.4.6 Theory.................................................................................................................... 46
1.2.5
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Theory ................................................................................... 48
1.2.5.1 Synopsis................................................................................................................. 48
1.2.5.1.1 Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE) ................................................................................. 48
5

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.5.1.1.1 General...................................................................................................... 48
1.2.5.1.1.2 Elementary particles .................................................................................. 48
1.2.5.1.1.3 Implications............................................................................................... 48
1.2.5.1.2 History ............................................................................................................. 49
1.2.5.1.3 Foundational Physics........................................................................................ 49
1.2.5.1.4 Varieties of ZPE............................................................................................... 50
1.2.5.1.5 Experimental evidence ..................................................................................... 50
1.2.5.1.6 Gravitation and Cosmology.............................................................................. 50
1.2.5.1.7 Propulsion theories........................................................................................... 50
1.2.5.1.8 Popular culture................................................................................................. 51
1.2.5.2 Spectral Energy Density (SED) .............................................................................. 51
1.2.6
The Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity .......................................................... 51
1.2.7
Dimensional Analysis Techniques and Buckingham’s “Π” (Pi) Theory ...................... 52
1.2.7.1 The principles......................................................................................................... 52
1.2.7.2 The atomic bomb.................................................................................................... 53
1.2.7.3 The birth and foundations of Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) ............................... 54
1.2.8
EGM: the natural philosophy of fundamental particles ................................................ 57
1.2.8.1 How was it derived? ............................................................................................... 57
1.2.8.2 Poynting Vector “Sω” ............................................................................................. 61
1.2.8.3 The size of the Proton, Neutron and Electron (radii: “rπ”, “rν”, “rε”) ....................... 62
1.2.8.4 The harmonic representation of fundamental particles ............................................ 64
1.2.8.4.1 Establishing the foundations............................................................................. 64
1.2.8.4.2 Improving accuracy.......................................................................................... 64
1.2.8.4.3 Formulating an hypothesis ............................................................................... 65
1.2.8.5 Identifying a mathematical pattern.......................................................................... 65
1.2.8.6 Results ................................................................................................................... 66
1.2.8.6.1 Harmonic evidence of unification..................................................................... 66
1.2.8.6.2 Recent developments........................................................................................ 67
1.2.8.6.2.1 PDG mass-energy ranges........................................................................... 67
1.2.8.6.2.2 Electron Neutrino and Up / Down / Bottom Quark mass............................ 68
1.2.8.6.2.3 Top Quark mass ........................................................................................ 68
1.2.8.6.2.3.1 The dilemma....................................................................................... 68
1.2.8.6.2.3.2 The resolution..................................................................................... 68
1.2.8.7 Discussion.............................................................................................................. 69
1.2.8.7.1 Experimental evidence of unification ............................................................... 69
1.2.8.7.2 The answers to some important questions......................................................... 70
1.2.8.7.2.1 What causes harmonic patterns to form?.................................................... 70
1.2.8.7.2.1.1 ZPF equilibrium.................................................................................. 70
1.2.8.7.2.1.2 Inherent quantum characteristics......................................................... 70
1.2.8.7.2.2 Why haven’t the “new” particles been experimentally detected?................ 71
1.2.8.7.2.3 Why can all fundamental particles be described in harmonic terms? .......... 71
1.2.8.7.2.4 Why is EGM a method and not a theory?................................................... 72
1.2.8.7.2.5 What would one need to do, in order to disprove EGM? ............................ 72
1.2.8.7.2.6 Why does EGM produce current and not constituent Quark masses? ......... 72
1.2.8.7.2.7 Why does EGM yield only the three observed families? ............................ 73
1.2.8.8 What may the periodic table of elementary particles look like under EGM? ........... 73
1.2.8.9 What are the most important results determined by the EGM construct?................. 74
1.2.8.9.1 PV and ZPF ..................................................................................................... 74
1.2.8.9.1.1 Gravitational amplitude spectrum “CPV”.................................................... 74
1.2.8.9.1.2 Gravitational frequency spectrum “ωPV”.................................................... 74
1.2.8.9.1.3 Harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ”.............................................................. 74
1.2.8.9.2 Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant .......................................................... 74
6

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8.9.2.1 The mass-energy of a Graviton “mgg” ........................................................ 74
1.2.8.9.2.2 The mass-energy of a Photon “mγγ” ........................................................... 74
1.2.8.9.2.3 The radius of a Photon “rγγ” ....................................................................... 75
1.2.8.9.2.4 The radius of a Graviton “rgg”.................................................................... 75
1.2.8.9.3 All Other Particles............................................................................................ 75
1.2.8.9.3.1 The Fine Structure Constant “α”................................................................ 75
1.2.8.9.3.2 Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio (the ratio of two particle spectra) “Stω”.. 75
1.2.8.9.3.3 Neutron Magnetic Radius “rνM”................................................................. 75
1.2.8.9.3.4 Proton Electric Radius “rπE” ...................................................................... 75
1.2.8.9.3.5 Proton Magnetic Radius “rπM” ................................................................... 75
1.2.8.9.3.6 Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius “rp” ............................ 76
1.2.8.9.3.7 The first term of the Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer Series) “λA” ................. 76
1.2.8.10 Graphical representation of fundamental particles under EGM ............................... 76
1.2.8.11 Concluding remarks about EGM ............................................................................ 78
1.2.9
The Hubble Constant “H0”.......................................................................................... 79
1.2.9.1 Description............................................................................................................. 79
1.2.9.2 Discovery............................................................................................................... 79
1.2.9.3 Interpretation.......................................................................................................... 80
1.2.9.4 Olbers’ paradox...................................................................................................... 81
1.2.9.5 Measuring the Hubble constant .............................................................................. 82
1.2.10 CMBR temperature..................................................................................................... 83
1.2.10.1 Description............................................................................................................. 84
1.2.10.2 Features.................................................................................................................. 84
1.2.10.3 Relationship to the “Big-Bang” .............................................................................. 85
1.2.10.3.1 General .......................................................................................................... 85
1.2.10.3.2 Temperature................................................................................................... 85
1.2.10.3.3 Primary anisotropy ......................................................................................... 86
1.2.10.3.4 Late time anisotropy....................................................................................... 87
1.2.10.3.5 Polarisation .................................................................................................... 88
1.2.10.4 Microwave background observations...................................................................... 88
2
2.1

Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 93
Numbering conventions..................................................................................................... 93

2.2
Quinta Essentia – Part 3..................................................................................................... 93
2.2.1
Alpha Forms “αx” ....................................................................................................... 93
2.2.2
Amplitude Spectrum ................................................................................................... 93
2.2.3
Background Field........................................................................................................ 93
2.2.4
Bandwidth Ratio “∆ωR” .............................................................................................. 93
2.2.5
Beta Forms “βx”.......................................................................................................... 93
2.2.6
Buckingham Π Theory (BPT) ..................................................................................... 93
2.2.7
Casimir Force “FPP” .................................................................................................... 93
2.2.8
Change in the Number of Modes “∆nS”....................................................................... 93
2.2.9
Compton Frequency “ωCx”.......................................................................................... 93
2.2.10 Cosmological Constant ............................................................................................... 94
2.2.11 Critical Boundary “ωβ” ............................................................................................... 94
2.2.12 Critical Factor “KC” .................................................................................................... 94
2.2.13 Critical Field Strengths “EC and BC” ........................................................................... 94
2.2.14 Critical Frequency “ωC”.............................................................................................. 94
2.2.15 Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H” ............................................................................. 94
7

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.16
2.2.17
2.2.18
2.2.19
2.2.20
2.2.21
2.2.22
2.2.23
2.2.24
2.2.25
2.2.26
2.2.27
2.2.28
2.2.29
2.2.30
2.2.31
2.2.32
2.2.33
2.2.34
2.2.35
2.2.36
2.2.37
2.2.38
2.2.39
2.2.40
2.2.41
2.2.42
2.2.43
2.2.44
2.2.45
2.2.46
2.2.47
2.2.48
2.2.49
2.2.50
2.2.51
2.2.52
2.2.53
2.2.54
2.2.55
2.2.56
2.2.57
2.2.58
2.2.59
2.2.60
2.2.61
2.2.62
2.2.63
2.2.64
2.2.65
2.2.66

Critical Mode “NC”..................................................................................................... 94
Critical Phase Variance “φC”....................................................................................... 94
Critical Ratio “KR”...................................................................................................... 94
Curl ............................................................................................................................ 94
DC-Offsets ................................................................................................................. 94
Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's)................................................................. 95
Divergence ................................................................................................................. 95
Dominant Bandwidth .................................................................................................. 95
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)................................................................................. 95
Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum ................................................................. 95
Energy Density (General) ........................................................................................... 95
Engineered Metric ...................................................................................................... 95
Engineered Refractive Index “KEGM” .......................................................................... 95
Engineered Relationship Function “∆K0(ω,X)” ........................................................... 95
Experimental Prototype (EP)....................................................................................... 95
Experimental Relationship Function “K0(ω,X)” .......................................................... 95
Fourier Spectrum ........................................................................................................ 95
Frequency Bandwidth “∆ωPV” .................................................................................... 96
Frequency Spectrum ................................................................................................... 96
Fundamental Beat Frequency “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)”........................................................... 96
Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)” ........................................................ 96
General Modelling Equations (GMEx) ........................................................................ 96
General Relativity (GR) .............................................................................................. 96
General Similarity Equations (GSEx) .......................................................................... 96
Gravitons “γg”............................................................................................................. 96
Graviton Mass-Energy Threshold “mγg”...................................................................... 96
Group Velocity ........................................................................................................... 96
Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ”............................................................................. 96
Harmonic Cut-Off Function “Ω”................................................................................. 97
Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ” .................................................................................... 97
Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”................................................................................. 97
Harmonic Inflection Frequency “ωX”.......................................................................... 97
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength “λX” ........................................................................ 97
Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx) ....................................................................... 97
IFF.............................................................................................................................. 97
Impedance Function.................................................................................................... 97
Kinetic Spectrum ........................................................................................................ 97
Mode Bandwidth ........................................................................................................ 97
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) “nβ”............................................................ 97
Number of Permissible Modes “N∆r”........................................................................... 98
Phenomena of Beats.................................................................................................... 98
Photon Mass-Energy Threshold “mγ”.......................................................................... 98
Polarisable Vacuum (PV)............................................................................................ 98
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωΩ”....................................................... 98
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum ............................................................................ 98
Potential Spectrum...................................................................................................... 98
Poynting Vector.......................................................................................................... 98
Precipitations .............................................................................................................. 98
Primary Precipitant ..................................................................................................... 98
Radii Calculations by Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) .............................................. 99
Range Factor “Stα” ..................................................................................................... 99
8

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.67
2.2.68
2.2.69
2.2.70
2.2.71
2.2.72
2.2.73
2.2.74
2.2.75
2.2.76
2.2.77
2.2.78
2.2.79
2.2.80
2.2.81
2.2.82
2.2.83
2.2.84
2.2.85
2.2.86
2.2.87
2.2.88
2.2.89
2.2.90
2.2.91
2.2.92
2.2.93

Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R) ...................................... 99
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx R) ...................................................... 99
Refractive Index “KPV” ............................................................................................... 99
Representation Error “RError”....................................................................................... 99
RMS Charge Radii (General) ...................................................................................... 99
RMS Charge Radius of the Neutron “rν” ..................................................................... 99
Similarity Bandwidth “∆ωS” ....................................................................................... 99
Spectral Energy Density “ρ0(ω)”............................................................................... 100
Spectral Similarity Equations (SSEx) ........................................................................ 100
Subordinate Bandwidth............................................................................................. 100
Unit Amplitude Spectrum ......................................................................................... 100
Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE).......................................................................................... 100
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) ............................................................................................. 100
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Spectrum ............................................................................. 100
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωZPF”...................................................... 100
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”......................................... 100
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Mode “nΩ ZPF”................................................. 100
1st Sense Check “Stβ”................................................................................................ 100
2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)................................. 100
2nd Sense Check “Stγ” ............................................................................................... 100
3rd Sense Check “Stδ”................................................................................................ 101
4th Sense Check “Stε”................................................................................................ 101
5th Sense Check “Stη” ............................................................................................... 101
6th Sense Check “Stθ”................................................................................................ 101
Physical Constants .................................................................................................... 101
Mathematical Constants and Symbols ....................................................................... 102
Solar System Statistics .............................................................................................. 102

2.3
Quinta Essentia – Part 4................................................................................................... 103
2.3.1
“Big-Bang”............................................................................................................... 103
2.3.2
Black-Hole “BH”...................................................................................................... 103
2.3.3
Broadband Propagation............................................................................................. 103
2.3.4
Buoyancy Point......................................................................................................... 103
2.3.5
CMBR Temperature “T0” ......................................................................................... 103
2.3.6
EGM-CMBR Temperature “TU” ............................................................................... 103
2.3.7
EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J” ....................................................................................... 103
2.3.8
EGM Hubble constant “HU”...................................................................................... 103
2.3.9
Event Horizon “RBH” ................................................................................................ 103
2.3.10 Galactic Reference Particle “GRP” ........................................................................... 103
2.3.11 Gravitational Interference ......................................................................................... 103
2.3.12 Gravitational Propagation ......................................................................................... 103
2.3.13 Hubble Constant “H0”............................................................................................... 104
2.3.14 Narrowband Propagation .......................................................................................... 104
2.3.15 Non-Physical ............................................................................................................ 104
2.3.16 Physical .................................................................................................................... 104
2.3.17 Primordial Universe.................................................................................................. 104
2.3.18 Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH” ............................................................................ 104
2.3.19 Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole “SPBH” .............................................................. 104
2.3.20 Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle .................................................................................. 104
2.3.21 Singularity ................................................................................................................ 104
2.3.22 Singularity Radius “rS” ............................................................................................. 104
2.3.23 Solar Mass ................................................................................................................ 104
9

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.3.24
2.3.25
2.3.26
3

Super-Massive-Black-Hole “SMBH”........................................................................ 105
Total Mass-Energy.................................................................................................... 105
Astronomical / Cosmological statistics...................................................................... 105

Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................. 107

3.1
Quinta Essentia – Part 3................................................................................................... 107
3.1.1
Acronyms ................................................................................................................. 107
3.1.2
Symbols in alphabetical order ................................................................................... 109
3.2
Quinta Essentia – Part 4................................................................................................... 116
3.2.1
Acronyms ................................................................................................................. 116
3.2.2
Symbols by chapter................................................................................................... 117
3.2.3
Symbols in alphabetical order ................................................................................... 121
4

Derivation Processes.......................................................................................................... 125

4.1
Main sequence................................................................................................................. 125
4.1.1
Characterisation of the gravitational spectrum........................................................... 125
4.1.2
Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” characteristics ..... 125
4.1.3
Fundamental Cosmology .......................................................................................... 125
4.1.4
Advanced Cosmology............................................................................................... 126
4.1.5
Gravitational Cosmology .......................................................................................... 126
4.1.6
Particle Cosmology................................................................................................... 126
4.2
The Hubble sequence....................................................................................................... 127
4.2.1
Preconditions ............................................................................................................ 127
4.2.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 127
4.2.3
Simplified sequence.................................................................................................. 127
4.3
The CMBR temperature sequence ................................................................................... 128
4.3.1
Preconditions ............................................................................................................ 128
4.3.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 128
4.3.3
Simplified sequence.................................................................................................. 128
5

Characterisation of the Gravitational Spectrum ............................................................. 129

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 129
5.1
Simplification of the EGM equations............................................................................... 130
5.1.1
“Ω → Ω1”, “nΩ → nΩ_1” and “ωΩ → ωΩ_1” ............................................................... 130
5.1.2
Computing errors ...................................................................................................... 130
5.2
Derivation of gravitational acceleration in terms of “ωΩ”................................................. 131
5.2.1
Transformation: “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_2”................................................................................ 131
5.2.1.1 Simplification....................................................................................................... 131
5.2.1.2 Computing errors ................................................................................................. 132
5.2.1.2.1 “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_2” ............................................................................................... 132
5.2.1.2.2 “g” ................................................................................................................. 132
5.2.1.3 Error analysis ....................................................................................................... 132
5.2.2
Transformation: “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_3”................................................................................ 133
5.2.2.1 Simplification....................................................................................................... 133
10

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.2.2.2

Computing errors ................................................................................................. 133

5.3

Formulation of a generalised cubic frequency expression in terms of “g”: “g → ωPV3” .... 134

5.4

Determination of the gravitationally dominant EGM frequency: “SωΩ → c⋅Um”............... 134

5.5
Derivation of EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J” ........................................................................ 135
5.5.1
Simplification ........................................................................................................... 135
5.5.2
Computing errors ...................................................................................................... 135
5.5.3
Error analysis............................................................................................................ 135
6

Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” Characteristics ...... 137

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 137
6.1
Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle” mass and radius... 138
6.1.1
What does “physical” mean?..................................................................................... 138
6.1.1.1 Conceptualisation................................................................................................. 138
6.1.1.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................... 138
6.1.1.3 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 139
6.1.1.3.1 Matter ............................................................................................................ 139
6.1.1.3.2 Energy density ............................................................................................... 139
6.1.1.3.3 Planck scale properties ................................................................................... 139
6.1.2
What is a “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle”? ............................................................. 140
6.1.2.1 Conceptualisation................................................................................................. 140
6.1.2.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................... 140
6.1.2.3 Definition............................................................................................................. 140
6.1.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 141
6.1.4
Computing errors ...................................................................................................... 143
6.1.5
Convergent and divergent spectra ............................................................................. 144
6.1.6
Honourable mention ................................................................................................. 144
6.1.7
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 144
6.1.7.1 Characteristics of a physical SPBH....................................................................... 144
6.1.7.2 Characteristics of a non-physical “Planck-Particle” .............................................. 144
6.1.7.3 Physicality of the EGM adjusted Planck Length ................................................... 145
6.2
Derivation of the value of the “KPV” at the event horizon of a SPBH ............................... 146
6.2.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 146
6.2.2
Construct .................................................................................................................. 146
6.2.2.1 1st Formulation ..................................................................................................... 146
6.2.2.2 2nd Formulation .................................................................................................... 148
6.2.3
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 148
6.3
Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SPBH ......................................................... 149
6.3.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 149
6.3.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 149
6.3.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 149
6.3.4
“ωPV(1,λxλh,mxmh)” .................................................................................................. 150
6.3.5
Honourable mention ................................................................................................. 151
6.3.6
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 151
6.4
Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SBH............................................................ 152
6.4.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 152
11

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5

Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 152
Construct .................................................................................................................. 152
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 152
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 152

6.5
Derivation of “rS” ............................................................................................................ 154
6.5.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 154
6.5.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 154
6.5.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 154
6.5.3.1 1st Formulation ..................................................................................................... 154
6.5.3.2 2nd Formulation .................................................................................................... 155
6.5.3.3 3rd Formulation..................................................................................................... 155
6.5.4
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 155
6.5.5
Honourable mention ................................................................................................. 156
6.5.6
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 156
6.6
“nΩ” and “ωΩ” profiles (as “r → RBH”) of SBH’s............................................................. 157
6.6.1
“nΩ”.......................................................................................................................... 157
6.6.1.1 Synopsis............................................................................................................... 157
6.6.1.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................... 157
6.6.1.3 Construct.............................................................................................................. 157
6.6.1.4 Sample calculations.............................................................................................. 157
6.6.1.5 Sample plots (log vs. log) ..................................................................................... 158
6.6.2
“ωΩ” ......................................................................................................................... 158
6.6.2.1 Synopsis............................................................................................................... 158
6.6.2.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................... 158
6.6.2.3 Construct.............................................................................................................. 159
6.6.2.4 Sample calculations.............................................................................................. 159
6.6.2.5 Sample plots (log vs. log) ..................................................................................... 160
6.6.3
“ωPV(1,r,MBH)” ......................................................................................................... 160
6.6.3.1 Synopsis............................................................................................................... 160
6.6.3.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................... 160
6.6.3.3 Construct.............................................................................................................. 161
6.6.3.4 Sample calculations.............................................................................................. 161
6.6.3.5 Sample plots (log vs. log) ..................................................................................... 161
6.6.3.6 Honourable mention............................................................................................. 162
6.6.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 162
6.7
Derivation of the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL” ..................................... 163
6.7.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 163
6.7.1.1 Fundamentals ....................................................................................................... 163
6.7.1.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................... 164
6.7.1.3 Sample calculations.............................................................................................. 164
6.7.2
Construct .................................................................................................................. 165
6.7.2.1 Reconciliation ...................................................................................................... 165
6.7.2.1.1 Dilemma ........................................................................................................ 165
6.7.2.1.2 Resolution...................................................................................................... 165
6.7.2.1.2.1 Uncertainty.............................................................................................. 165
6.7.2.1.2.2 Quasi-Uncertainty ................................................................................... 165
6.7.2.2 “TL” ..................................................................................................................... 165
6.7.2.2.1 Fundamentals ................................................................................................. 165
6.7.2.2.2 Sample calculations........................................................................................ 166
12

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.7.2.2.3 Simplifications ............................................................................................... 167
6.7.3
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 167
6.8
Derivation of the average emission frequency per Graviton “ωg”..................................... 168
6.8.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 168
6.8.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 168
6.8.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 168
6.8.4
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 169
6.8.5
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 169
6.9
Why can't we observe BH’s? ........................................................................................... 170
6.9.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 170
6.9.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 170
6.9.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 171
6.9.4
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 171
6.9.4.1 SBH’s .................................................................................................................. 171
6.9.4.2 SPBH’s ................................................................................................................ 172
6.9.5
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 173
7

Fundamental Cosmology................................................................................................... 175

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 175
7.1
Derivation of the primordial and present Hubble constants “Hα, HU”............................... 176
7.1.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 176
7.1.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 176
7.1.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 177
7.1.3.1 “AU, RU, HU”........................................................................................................ 177
7.1.3.2 “Hα”..................................................................................................................... 178
7.1.3.3 “ρU” ..................................................................................................................... 179
7.1.3.4 “MU” .................................................................................................................... 179
7.1.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 179
7.2
Derivation of the CMBR temperature “TU”...................................................................... 180
7.2.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 180
7.2.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 180
7.2.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 181
7.2.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 181
7.3
Numerical solutions for “Hα, AU, RU, ρU, MU, HU” and “TU” ........................................... 182
7.3.1
“r2, r3, M2, M3” ......................................................................................................... 182
7.3.2
Computational results ............................................................................................... 183
7.3.3
Honourable mention ................................................................................................. 183
7.3.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 184
7.4
Determination of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on “HU” and “TU”...................... 185
7.4.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 185
7.4.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 185
7.4.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 185
7.4.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 185
7.5

“TU” as a function of a generalised Hubble constant “TU → TU2” .................................... 186
13

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.6
Derivation of “Ro”, “MG”, “HU2” and “ρU2” from “TU2”................................................... 187
7.6.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 187
7.6.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 187
7.6.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 188
7.6.3.1 “Ro” or “MG”........................................................................................................ 188
7.6.3.2 “Ro” and “MG” ..................................................................................................... 189
7.6.3.3 “Ro”, “MG”, “HU2” and “ρU2” ............................................................................... 190
7.6.3.3.1 “Ro” and “MG” ............................................................................................... 190
7.6.3.3.2 “HU2” and “ρU2” ............................................................................................. 190
7.6.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 191
7.7
Experimentally implicit derivation of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF”............... 192
7.7.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 192
7.7.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 192
7.7.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 192
7.7.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 193
8

Advanced Cosmology ........................................................................................................ 195

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 195
8.1
Time dependent CMBR temperature “TU2 → TU3” .......................................................... 196
8.1.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 196
8.1.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 196
8.1.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 196
8.1.4
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 197
8.1.5
Sample plots ............................................................................................................. 197
8.1.5.1 “TU3 vs. Hβ”: Figure 4.22 ..................................................................................... 198
8.1.5.2 “TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.23................................................................... 199
8.1.6
Honourable mention ................................................................................................. 200
8.1.7
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 200
8.2
Rates of change of CMBR temperature “TU3 → TU4 → d1,2,3TU4/dt1,2,3” ........................... 201
8.2.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 201
8.2.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 201
8.2.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 201
8.2.4
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 202
8.2.5
Sample plots ............................................................................................................. 203
8.2.5.1 “TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.24.................................................................. 204
8.2.5.2 “TU3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.25................................................................. 205
8.2.5.3 “TU3 vs. H = (HβHα)” (i): Figure 4.26 ................................................................... 206
8.2.5.4 “TU3 vs. H = (HβHα)” (ii): Figure 4.27 .................................................................. 207
8.2.5.5 “TU3 vs. r = (HβHα)-1c” (i): Figure 4.28................................................................. 208
8.2.5.6 “TU3 vs. r = (HβHα)-1c” (ii): Figure 4.29................................................................ 209
8.2.5.7 “dTU4/dt vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.30............................................................. 210
8.2.5.8 “dTU4/dt vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.31............................................................ 211
8.2.5.9 “d2TU4/dt2 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.32 .......................................................... 212
8.2.5.10 “d2TU4/dt2 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.33 ......................................................... 213
8.2.5.11 “|d3TU4/dt3| vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.34......................................................... 214
8.2.5.12 “|d3TU4/dt3| vs. t = (HβHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.35 ....................................................... 215
8.2.6
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 216
14

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3
Rates of change of the Hubble constant “d1,2H/dt1,2”........................................................ 217
8.3.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 217
8.3.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 217
8.3.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 217
8.3.4
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 220
8.3.5
Construct errors ........................................................................................................ 222
8.3.5.1 How can they be determined?............................................................................... 222
8.3.5.2 Analytical............................................................................................................. 222
8.3.5.3 Graphical ............................................................................................................. 223
8.3.5.4 Numerical ............................................................................................................ 223
8.3.5.4.1 General case................................................................................................... 223
8.3.5.4.2 Specific case .................................................................................................. 223
8.3.6
Sample plots ............................................................................................................. 224
8.3.6.1 “dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.36 ................................................................... 225
8.3.6.2 “dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.37.................................................................. 226
8.3.6.3 “dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.38................................................................. 227
8.3.6.4 “dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iv): Figure 4.39 ................................................................. 228
8.3.6.5 “d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.40 ................................................................ 229
8.3.6.6 “d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.41 ............................................................... 230
8.3.6.7 “d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iii): Figure 4.42 .............................................................. 231
8.3.6.8 “d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (iv): Figure 4.43............................................................... 232
8.3.6.9 “d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (v): Figure 4.44................................................................ 233
8.3.6.10 “d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” (vi): Figure 4.45............................................................... 234
8.3.6.11 “|H| vs. (HβηHα)-1” (i): Figure 4.46 ....................................................................... 235
8.3.6.12 “|H| vs. (HβηHα)-1” (ii): Figure 4.47 ...................................................................... 236
8.3.6.13 “TU2,3 vs. |H|”: Figure 4.48 ................................................................................... 237
8.3.6.14 “TU2 vs. |H|”: Figure 4.49 ..................................................................................... 238
8.3.7
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 239
8.4

Cosmological evolution process ...................................................................................... 241

8.5
History of the Universe.................................................................................................... 243
8.5.1
According to the Standard Model (SM)..................................................................... 243
8.5.1.1 Graphical representation (i) .................................................................................. 243
8.5.1.2 Graphical representation (ii) ................................................................................. 244
8.5.1.3 Graphical representation (iii) ................................................................................ 245
8.5.1.4 Graphical representation (iv) ................................................................................ 246
8.5.2
According to EGM.................................................................................................... 247
8.6
EGM Cosmological construct limitations ........................................................................ 248
8.6.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 248
8.6.2
Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 248
8.6.3
Construct .................................................................................................................. 248
8.6.3.1 The mass limit “ML” ............................................................................................ 248
8.6.3.2 The size limit “rL” ................................................................................................ 248
8.6.3.3 The age limit “tL” ................................................................................................. 249
8.6.4
Boundary ratio .......................................................................................................... 249
8.6.5
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 249
8.6.6
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 249
8.7
Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools for gravitational astronomy? ............... 250
8.7.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 250
15

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.7.2
8.7.3
8.7.4
8.7.5
9

Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 250
Construct .................................................................................................................. 250
Sample calculations .................................................................................................. 251
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 251

Gravitational Cosmology .................................................................................................. 253

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 253
9.1
Gravitational propagation: the mechanism for interaction ................................................ 254
9.1.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 254
9.1.2
Construct .................................................................................................................. 255
9.1.2.1 Broadband............................................................................................................ 255
9.1.2.2 Narrowband ......................................................................................................... 255
9.1.3
Testing...................................................................................................................... 257
9.1.3.1 Newtonian............................................................................................................ 257
9.1.3.2 Relativistic ........................................................................................................... 257
9.1.3.3 PV........................................................................................................................ 258
9.1.4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 258
9.2
Gravitational interference: the mechanism of interaction ................................................. 259
9.2.1
Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 259
9.2.2
Construct .................................................................................................................. 259
9.2.2.1 Broadband............................................................................................................ 259
9.2.2.2 Narrowband ......................................................................................................... 260
9.2.3
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 262
9.2.3.1 Broadband............................................................................................................ 262
9.2.3.2 Narrowband ......................................................................................................... 262
10

Particle Cosmology........................................................................................................ 263

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 263
10.1

Derivation of the Photon and Graviton mass-energies lower limit.................................... 264

10.2

Derivation of the Photon and Graviton RMS charge radii lower limit .............................. 264

10.3

Derivation of the Photon charge threshold ....................................................................... 264

10.4

Derivation of the Photon charge upper limit..................................................................... 265

10.5

Derivation of the Photon charge lower limit..................................................................... 266

10.6

Other useful relationships ................................................................................................ 266

11

Equation Summary ....................................................................................................... 269

11.1 Gravitation ...................................................................................................................... 269
11.1.1 “Stg” ......................................................................................................................... 269
11.1.2 “ωΩ_2”....................................................................................................................... 269
11.1.3 “aEGM_ωΩ” ................................................................................................................. 269
11.1.4 “StG”......................................................................................................................... 269
11.1.5 “ωΩ_3”....................................................................................................................... 269
16

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.1.6
11.1.7
11.1.8
11.1.9
11.1.10
11.1.11
11.1.12
11.1.13
11.1.14
11.1.15
11.1.16
11.1.17
11.1.18
11.1.19
11.1.20

“λΩ_3” ....................................................................................................................... 269
“G” ........................................................................................................................... 269
“ωPV(nPV,r,M)3” ........................................................................................................ 269
“StJ”.......................................................................................................................... 269
“CΩ_J1, CΩ_Jω” ........................................................................................................... 269
“nΩ_2” ....................................................................................................................... 270
“KDepp” ..................................................................................................................... 270
“KPV”........................................................................................................................ 270
“TL”.......................................................................................................................... 270
“ωg”.......................................................................................................................... 270
“ngg” ......................................................................................................................... 270
“rω”........................................................................................................................... 270
“aPV”......................................................................................................................... 270
“ag”........................................................................................................................... 270
“gav” ......................................................................................................................... 270

11.2 Planck-Particles............................................................................................................... 270
11.2.1 “mx”.......................................................................................................................... 270
11.2.2 “λx” .......................................................................................................................... 270
11.2.3 “ρm, ρS” .................................................................................................................... 271
11.2.4 “r3, M3”..................................................................................................................... 271
11.3 SBH’s.............................................................................................................................. 271
11.3.1 “StBH” ....................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.2 “ωΩ_4”....................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.3 “rS” ........................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.4 “nΩ_4” ....................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.5 “nΩ_5” ....................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.6 “nBH” ........................................................................................................................ 271
11.3.7 “ωΩ_5”....................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.8 “ωBH”........................................................................................................................ 271
11.3.9 “ωΩ_6”....................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.10 “ωΩ_7”....................................................................................................................... 271
11.3.11 “ωPV_1” ..................................................................................................................... 272
11.3.12 “ng”........................................................................................................................... 272
11.4 Cosmology ...................................................................................................................... 272
11.4.1 “r2, M2”..................................................................................................................... 272
11.4.2 “λy” .......................................................................................................................... 272
11.4.3 “KU” ......................................................................................................................... 272
11.4.4 “AU” ......................................................................................................................... 272
11.4.5 “RU” ......................................................................................................................... 272
11.4.6 “HU, HU2, HU5, |H|” ................................................................................................... 272
11.4.7 “Hα” ......................................................................................................................... 272
11.4.8 “ρU, ρU2”................................................................................................................... 273
11.4.9 “MU”......................................................................................................................... 273
11.4.10 “KT” ......................................................................................................................... 273
11.4.11 “TW” ......................................................................................................................... 273
11.4.12 “StT” ......................................................................................................................... 273
11.4.13 “TU, TU2, TU3, TU4, TU5” ............................................................................................ 273
11.4.14 “dTdt, dT2dt2, dT3dt3”................................................................................................. 274
17

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.4.15 “dHdt, dH2dt2” ........................................................................................................... 274
11.4.16 “t1, t2, t3, t4, t5” .......................................................................................................... 274
11.5 ZPF ................................................................................................................................. 275
11.5.1 “ΩEGM” ..................................................................................................................... 275
11.5.2 “ΩZPF” ...................................................................................................................... 275
11.5.3 “UZPF”....................................................................................................................... 275
11.6 EGM Construct limits...................................................................................................... 275
11.6.1 “ML”......................................................................................................................... 275
11.6.2 “rL” ........................................................................................................................... 275
11.6.3 “tL” ........................................................................................................................... 275
11.6.4 “ML / rL = MEGM / REGM = tL / tEGM” .......................................................................... 275
11.7 Particle-Physics ............................................................................................................... 275
11.7.1 “mγγ2” ....................................................................................................................... 275
11.7.2 “mgg2” ....................................................................................................................... 275
11.7.3 “rγγ2” ......................................................................................................................... 275
11.7.4 “rgg2”......................................................................................................................... 276
11.7.5 “Nγ” .......................................................................................................................... 276
11.7.6 “Qγ” .......................................................................................................................... 276
11.7.7 “Qγγ”......................................................................................................................... 276
11.7.8 “Qγγ2”........................................................................................................................ 276
11.7.9 “tL / TL = mγγ / mγγ2 = Qγγ / Qγγ2”................................................................................ 276
11.8

Other useful relationships ................................................................................................ 276

11.9

Quick symbol guide......................................................................................................... 277

APPENDIX 4.A......................................................................................................................... 281
Thermodynamic “Π” Groupings of BH’s .................................................................................... 281
Conventional calculation of SPBH temperature “TBH” ................................................................ 281
“TU2 : TBH”.................................................................................................................................. 282
Approximations of “TU2(t1-1)” ..................................................................................................... 282

“1st” Form................................................................................................................. 282

“2nd” Form ................................................................................................................ 284
Approximation of “λx” in terms of physical constants ................................................................. 284
Physical interpretation of “λx”..................................................................................................... 285
Bibliography 4........................................................................................................................... 287
APPENDIX 4.B ......................................................................................................................... 291
Quinta Essentia – Part 3 .............................................................................................................. 291

MathCad 8 Professional: calculation engine .............................................................. 291
a. Computational environment ........................................................................................ 291
18

www.deltagroupengineering.com

b.
c.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Units of measure (definitions) ..................................................................................... 291
Constants (definitions) ................................................................................................ 292
Planck characteristics (definitions) .............................................................................. 293
Astronomical statistics ................................................................................................ 293
Other........................................................................................................................... 293
Arbitrary values for illustrational purposes.................................................................. 293
PV / ZPF equations ..................................................................................................... 294
Casimir equations........................................................................................................ 295
Fundamental particle equations ................................................................................... 296
Particle summary matrix 3.1........................................................................................ 300
Particle summary matrix 3.2........................................................................................ 301
Particle summary matrix 3.3........................................................................................ 302
Particle summary matrix 3.4........................................................................................ 303
Similarity equations .................................................................................................... 304
Calculation results....................................................................................................... 305
Resonant Casimir cavity design specifications (experimental)..................................... 313
MathCad 12: High precision calculation results ........................................................ 315
Computational environment ........................................................................................ 315
Particle summary matrix 3.1........................................................................................ 315
Particle summary matrix 3.2........................................................................................ 316
Particle summary matrix 3.3........................................................................................ 317
Particle summary matrix 3.4........................................................................................ 318

Quinta Essentia – Part 4 .............................................................................................................. 321

MathCad 8 Professional ............................................................................................ 321
a. Complete simulation ................................................................................................... 321
i.
Computational environment.................................................................................... 321
ii.
Units of measure (definitions)................................................................................. 321
iii. Constants (definitions)............................................................................................ 321
iv. Astronomical statistics............................................................................................ 321
v.
Characterisation of the gravitational spectrum ........................................................ 321
1. “Ω → Ω1, nΩ → nΩ_1, ωΩ → ωΩ_1”....................................................................... 321
2. “g → ωΩ” ............................................................................................................. 323
i. “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_2” ................................................................................................. 323
ii. “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_3” ................................................................................................. 325
3. “g → ωPV3” .......................................................................................................... 325
4. “SωΩ → c⋅Um” ...................................................................................................... 326
5. “CΩ_J” .................................................................................................................. 326
vi. Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and SBH characteristics ........................................ 327
1. “λx, mx”................................................................................................................ 327
2. “ρm(λxλh,mxmh), Um(λxλh,mxmh)”......................................................................... 329
3. Physicality of “Kλ”............................................................................................... 329
4. “KPV @ λxλh”....................................................................................................... 329
i. “KPV = Undefined”........................................................................................... 329
ii. “KDepp = KPV”................................................................................................... 331
5. “ωΩ_3” .................................................................................................................. 332
6. “ωΩ_4” .................................................................................................................. 333
7. “rS”....................................................................................................................... 334
i. “rS(λxλh)” ......................................................................................................... 334
ii. “rS(ΜΒΗ), rS(RΒΗ)” ........................................................................................... 334
iii. “MBH(rS)” ........................................................................................................ 335
19

www.deltagroupengineering.com

“r → RBH” ............................................................................................................ 336
i. “nΩ → nΩ_4, nΩ_5, nBH” ..................................................................................... 336
ii. “ωΩ → ωΩ_5, ωBH” ........................................................................................... 337
iii. “ωΩ_6, ωΩ_7, ωPV_1” .......................................................................................... 338
9. “TL” ..................................................................................................................... 339
10. “ωg, ngg”............................................................................................................... 340
11. BH’s..................................................................................................................... 341
vii. Fundamental Cosmology ........................................................................................ 343
1. “Hα, HU” .............................................................................................................. 343
i. “AU, RU, HU”.................................................................................................... 343
ii. “Hα”................................................................................................................. 344
iii. “ρU”................................................................................................................. 344
iv. “MU”................................................................................................................ 345
2. “TU” ..................................................................................................................... 345
3. “TU → TU2”.......................................................................................................... 346
4. “TU2 → Ro, MG, HU2, ρU2” .................................................................................... 347
5. “UZPF” .................................................................................................................. 349
viii. Advanced Cosmology............................................................................................. 349
1. “nΩ_2 → nΩ_6”....................................................................................................... 349
2. “KU2 → KU3”........................................................................................................ 350
3. “HU2 → HU3, TU2 → TU3” ..................................................................................... 350
4. “HU3 → HU4, TU3 → TU4” ..................................................................................... 350
5. “HU4 → HU5, TU4 → TU5” ..................................................................................... 350
6. “HU3, HU4, HU5, TU3, TU4, TU5” ............................................................................. 351
7. Time dependent characteristics............................................................................. 351
8. History of the Universe ........................................................................................ 360
9. “ML, rL, tL, tEGM” .................................................................................................. 361
10. Radio astronomy .................................................................................................. 362
ix. Gravitational Cosmology........................................................................................ 363
x.
Particle Cosmology ................................................................................................ 365
b. Calculation engine ...................................................................................................... 367
i.
Computational environment.................................................................................... 367
ii.
Standard relationships............................................................................................. 367
iii. Derived constants ................................................................................................... 367
iv. Base approximations / simplifications..................................................................... 368
v.
SBH mass and radius.............................................................................................. 369
vi. “nΩ”........................................................................................................................ 370
vii. “ωΩ, TΩ, λΩ”........................................................................................................... 371
viii. Gravitation ............................................................................................................. 373
ix. Flux intensity.......................................................................................................... 374
x.
Photon and Graviton populations ............................................................................ 376
xi. Hubble constant and CMBR temperature................................................................ 377
xii. SBH temperature .................................................................................................... 384
xiii. ZPF ........................................................................................................................ 385
xiv. Cosmological limits................................................................................................ 386
xv. Particle Cosmology ................................................................................................ 386

MathCad 12 .............................................................................................................. 389
c. High precision calculation engine................................................................................ 389
i.
Computational environment.................................................................................... 389
ii.
Astronomical statistics............................................................................................ 389
iii. Derived constants ................................................................................................... 389
8.

20

www.deltagroupengineering.com

iv.
d.

Algorithm............................................................................................................... 389
Various forms of the derived constants........................................................................ 390

Periodic Table of the Elements ................................................................................................. 391
Notes

22, 24, 56, 78, 92, 102, 105, 106, 108, 115, 116, 120, 124, 127, 128, 136, 145, 151,
153, 167, 173, 174, 179, 184, 191, 194, 200, 216, 240, 242, 251, 252, 267, 268, 279,
280, 286, 290, 314, 319, 320, 366, 388, 390, 392
ERRATA

21

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

22

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Scientific Achievements
The physical characteristics derived herein (from 1st principles), based upon a single paradigm [i.e.
the application of Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT) and Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s)]
may be articulated as follows (many of which are experimentally verified or implied),
• Astro-Physics
1. Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” (SBH) mass and radius.
2. Derivation of maximum permissible energy density.
3. Derivation of the harmonic mode and frequency characteristics and profiles of a SBH.
4. Derivation of the SBH singularity radius.
• Cosmology
• General
5. Derivation of the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter.
6. Derivation of the present Cosmological age.
7. Derivation of the present Cosmological size.
8. Derivation of the total Cosmological mass.
9. Derivation of the present Cosmological mass-density.
• Hubble constant
10. Derivation of the Hubble constant at the instant of the “Big-Bang”.
11. Derivation of the maximum Hubble constant since the “Big-Bang”.
12. Derivation of the present Hubble constant within experimental tolerance.
13. Derivation of the Hubble constant in the time domain.
14. Derivation of the rates of change of the Hubble constant in the time domain.
• Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature
15. Derivation of the CMBR temperature at the instant of the “Big-Bang”.
16. Derivation of the maximum Cosmological temperature since the “Big-Bang”.
17. Derivation of the present CMBR temperature within experimental tolerance.
18. Derivation of the CMBR temperature in the time domain.
19. Derivation of the rates of change of the CMBR temperature in the time domain.
• Evolutionary processes
20. Categorisation of the Cosmological evolution process into two regimes: comprised of
four distinct periods.
21. Determination of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on the Hubble constant and
CMBR temperature.
22. Articulation of the precise history of the Universe.
• Cosmological constant
23. Experimentally implicit derivation of the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) energy density
threshold, yielding an insight into the Cosmological constant.
• Particle-Physics
24. Derivation of the Photon and Graviton mass-energies lower limit.
25. Derivation of the Photon and Graviton Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge radii lower limit.
26. Derivation of the Photon charge threshold.
27. Derivation of the Photon charge upper and lower limits.
Note: where possible, calculated results have been compared to physical measurement. Cognisant
of experimental uncertainty, key predictions herein may be considered to be exact.

23

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

24

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1 Introduction
1.1 The natural philosophy of the Cosmos
1.1.1 Objectives and scope2
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.
This text is a companion to “Quinta Essentia – Part 3”, applying a method termed ElectroGravi-Magnetics (EGM). [1-19] Storti et. Al. derived the EGM construct, utilising Dimensional
Analysis Techniques (DAT’s) and Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT)3, 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 manner4. 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).
1.1.2 How are these objectives achieved?
1.1.2.1 Synopsis
The primary tool employed to achieve our objectives is similitude5, 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.

2

At the time of commencement of formulation of this text, only the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) 2002 data was available. Subsequently, the NIST 2006 values for physical
constants may differ slightly, but do not change any computed or predicted results herein, or in
“Quinta Essentia – Part 3”, by any significant measure.
3
Refer to the many standard texts relating to DAT’s and BPT.
4
In accordance with Zero-Point-Field equilibria.
5
A reference to DAT’s and BPT.
25

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.2.2 Derivation process
1.1.2.2.1 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:
St J

C Ω_J1( r , M )

9

. M

2

5

8

r

r

(4.52)

where,
9 .c .
St G
4 .π
4

St J

St G



3.

3 .ω h
4 .π .h

2
9

(4.51)
2

. c
2

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 [8,10].
• “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 [4].
26

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.2.2.2 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.
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

27

(4.242)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.2.2.3 “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
π 3

6

(4.72)

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 [13].
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 U2( r , M )

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

28

(4.276)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

xv. Transform “TU” to “TU2”: (see: Ch. 7.5),
Output:
K W .St T .ln

T U2( H )

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

2

(4.274)

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 [20] (“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 [21].
“H0 = 71(km/s/Mpc)” as defined by the PDG [22] (“Mpc” = Mega-parsec).
“T0 = 2.725(K)” as defined by the PDG. [20]

1.1.2.2.4 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

.

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 domain6: (see: Ch. 8.3.3),
Output:
H

d
H
dt

(4.378)

6

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.
29

www.deltagroupengineering.com

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:
1

t

H γ .H α

Hγ Hβ

(4.359)

η

(4.376)

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 )

7 .µ .

256
KW
c

µ

µ

32

2

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)

1.1.3 Sample results
1.1.3.1 Numerical evaluation and analysis
1.1.3.1.1 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

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

30

(4.254)
(4.255)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

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
H0
1 .
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h

1 = 5.515064 ( % )

(4.256)
.
1 = 9.08391310

T0

3

(%)

(4.257)

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 view asserted in [23] 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”.

31

www.deltagroupengineering.com

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,
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”.
1.1.3.1.2 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

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

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 1

2.206287 2.206287
4.196153 4.196153

2
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

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 1

2

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).

32

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.3.2 Graphical evaluation and analysis
1.1.3.2.1 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,

33

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.3.2.2 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,

34

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.3.2.3 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
0 < t < Hα-1
-∞ < TU2 < 0
+∞ > |H| > Hα
-1
0 → Hα
-∞ → 0
+∞ → Hα
Hα-1 ≤ t < t1
0 ≤ TU2 < TU2(t1-1)
Hα ≥ |H| > 0
Hα-1 → t1
0 → TU2(t1-1)
Hα → 0
-1
t1 ≤ t < t4
TU2(t1 ) ≥ TU2 > TU2(t4-1)
0 ≤ |H| < √|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|
t1 → t4
TU2(t1-1) → TU2(t4-1)
0 → √|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|
-1
TU2(t4 ) ≥ TU2 ≥ TU2(HU2)
√|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]| ≥ |H| ≥ HU2
t4 ≤ t < AU
t4 → AU
TU2(t4-1) → 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)
H02
≈ 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)

Physical @ {RBH ≥ rS}

Non-Physical
@ {RBH < rS}

Period
Primordial
Inflation
Thermal
Inflation
Hubble
Inflation
Hubble
Expansion
Regime

35

www.deltagroupengineering.com

t4
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 instant of maximum physical “|H|”: ≈ 2.093267 x10-41(s)
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
-1
Hα ≈ 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
31
0
≈ 3.195518 x10
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

1.1.4 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

34 .

10

10 .

(s)

1

T U2

T U2

. 28 ( K )
= 1.92400510

. 15 ( K )
= 3.43308810

(s)

1
2.

.
= 1.01325410
( K)
9

10 ( s )

36

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.

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 )

37

(4.405)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.1.5 Discussion
1.1.5.1 Conceptualization
1.1.5.1.1 “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).
1.1.5.1.2 “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).
1.1.5.1.3 “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 frequency7 “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 spectrum8) 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 unity9, it is
demonstrated that “ωΩ → ωΩ_3” (see: Ch. 5.1, 5.2), consequently “CΩ_J” may be simplified
7

i.e. the high-end terminal spectral frequency.
The PV spectrum is a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum.
9
The typical representation of “KPV” is an isomorphic weak field approximation to General
Relativity (GR).
8

38

www.deltagroupengineering.com

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.
1.1.5.1.4 “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 particles10, 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).
1.1.5.2 Dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
1.1.5.2.1 “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)”.
10

One of them being an arbitrarily selected reference particle from which to compare all others.
39

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Matter radiates Gravitons11 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 distance12 to the Galactic centre and “M2” represents total
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 reference13 as the measurement of “H0” (see: Ch.
7.1).
1.1.5.2.2 “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).
1.1.6 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 constant14 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).
11

Coherent populations of conjugate Photon pairs for a minimum period of “TL”.
i.e. the distance relative to the Galactic centre from where a physical measurement of “H0” is
performed.
13
The solar system.
14
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”.
12

40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

⇒ 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).
⇒ 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 PDG15 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)”.
15

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/hubblerpp.pdf (pg. 20 - “WMAP + All”).
41

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2 Fundamentals
The following statements are verbatim quotations from [24].
1.2.1 General Relativity (GR)
General Relativity (GR) is a geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein
in 1915-16. It unifies special relativity and Sir Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation with the
insight that gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time,
with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time.
GR is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field
equations to relate space-time content and space-time curvature. GR is currently the most successful
gravitational theory, being almost universally accepted and well confirmed by observations. The
first success of general relativity was in explaining the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury.
Then in 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington announced that observations of stars near the eclipsed
Sun confirmed GR’s prediction that massive objects bend light. Since then, other observations and
experiments have confirmed many of the predictions of GR, including gravitational time dilation
and gravitational red-shift of light. In addition, numerous observations are interpreted as confirming
the weirdest prediction of GR, the existence of Black-Holes (BH’s).
In the mathematics of GR, the Einstein field equations become a set of simultaneous
differential equations which are solved to produce metric tensors of space-time. These metric
tensors describe the shape of the space-time manifold and are used to obtain predictions. The
connections of the metric tensors specify the geodesic paths that objects follow when travelling
inertially. Important solutions of the Einstein field equations include the Schwarzschild solution (for
the space-time surrounding a spherically symmetric uncharged and non-rotating massive object),
the Reissner-Nordström solution (for a charged spherically symmetric massive object), and the Kerr
metric (for a rotating massive object).
In spite of its overwhelming success, there is discomfort with GR in the scientific
community due to its being incompatible with Quantum Mechanics (QM) and the reachable
singularities of BH’s (at which the math of GR breaks down). Because of this, numerous other
theories have been proposed as alternatives to GR. The most successful of these was Brans-Dicke
theory, which appeared to have observational support in the 1960’s. However, those observations
have since been refuted and modern measurements indicate that any Brans-Dicke type of deviation
from GR must be very small if it exists at all.
End of verbatim quotation.

Albert Einstein16,

16

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/index.html
42

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.2 Black-Holes (BH’s)
The following statements are verbatim quotations from [24].
A Black-Hole (BH) is an object predicted by GR, with a gravitational field so powerful that
even ElectroMagnetic (EM) radiation (such as light) cannot escape its pull. A BH is defined to be a
region of space-time where escape to the outside Universe is impossible. The outer boundary of this
region is called the event horizon. Nothing can move from inside the event horizon to the outside,
even briefly, due to the extreme gravitational field existing within the region.
For the same reason, observers outside the event horizon cannot see any events which may
be happening within the event horizon; thus any energy being radiated or events happening within
the region are forever unable to be seen or detected from outside. Within the BH is a singularity, an
anomalous place where matter is compressed to the degree that the known laws of Physics no
longer apply to it.
Theoretically, a BH can be of any size. Astrophysicists expect to find BH’s with masses
ranging between roughly the mass of the Sun (“stellar-mass” BH’s) to many millions of times the
mass of the Sun (i.e. SuperMassive BH’s). The existence of BH’s in the Universe is well supported
by astronomical observation, particularly from studying X-ray emission from X-ray binaries and
active Galactic nuclei. It has also been hypothesised that BH’s radiate an undetectably small amount
of energy due to QM effects called Hawking radiation.
End of verbatim quotation.

Figure 4.1: A Feeding SuperMassive “Black-Hole” - credit: Gabriel Pérez Díaz, SMM del IAC,
43

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.3 Quantum Mechanics (QM)
The following statements are verbatim quotations from [24].
Quantum Mechanics (QM) refers to a discrete unit that Quantum Theory assigns to certain
physical quantities, such as the energy of an atom at rest. The discovery that waves could be
measured in particle-like small packets of energy called quanta led to the branch of Physics that
deals with atomic and subatomic systems which we today call QM. It is the underlying
mathematical framework of many fields of Physics and Chemistry.
The foundations of QM were established during the first half of the twentieth century by
Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born,
John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli and others. Some fundamental aspects of the
theory are still actively studied.
It is necessary to use QM to understand the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and
smaller. For example, if Newtonian mechanics governed the workings of an atom, Electrons would
rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus. However, in the natural world the Electrons
normally remain in an unknown orbital path around the nucleus, defying classical
ElectroMagnetism.
QM was initially developed to explain the atom, especially the spectra of light emitted by
different atomic species. The Quantum Theory of the atom developed as an explanation for an
Electron remaining in its orbital, which could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by
classical ElectroMagnetism.
In the formalism of QM, the state of a system at a given time is described by a complex
wave function (sometimes referred to as orbital’s in the case of atomic Electrons), and more
generally, elements of a complex vector space. This abstract mathematical object allows for the
calculation of probabilities of outcomes of concrete experiments. For example, it allows one to
compute the probability of finding an Electron in a particular region around the nucleus at a
particular time.
Contrary to classical mechanics, one cannot make simultaneous predictions of conjugate
variables, such as position and momentum, with arbitrary accuracy. For instance, Electrons may be
considered to be located somewhere within a region of space, but with their exact positions being
unknown. Contours of constant probability, often referred to as “clouds”, may be drawn around the
nucleus of an atom to conceptualise where the Electron might be located with the most probability.
It should be stressed that the Electron itself is not spread out over such cloud regions. It is either in a
particular region of space, or it is not. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle quantifies the inability to
precisely locate the particle.
The other exemplar that led to QM was the study of EM waves such as light. When it was
found in 1900 by Max Planck that the energy of waves could be described as consisting of small
packets or quanta, Albert Einstein exploited this idea to show that an EM wave such as light could
be described by a particle called the Photon with discrete energy, dependent upon its frequency.
This led to a theory of unity between subatomic particles and EM waves called waveparticle duality in which particles and waves were neither one nor the other, but had certain
properties of both. While QM describes the world of the very small, it also is needed to explain
certain “macroscopic quantum systems” such as superconductors and superfluids.
Broadly speaking, QM incorporates four classes of phenomena that classical Physics cannot
account for: (i) the quantisation (discretisation) of certain physical quantities, (ii) wave-particle
duality, (iii) the uncertainty principle and (iv), quantum entanglement.
End of verbatim quotation.

44

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.4 Particle-Physics
The following statements are verbatim quotations from [24].
1.2.4.1 Synopsis
Particle-Physics is a branch of Physics that studies the elementary constituents of matter and
radiation, and the interactions between them. It is also called High Energy Physics (HEP), because
many elementary particles do not occur under normal circumstances in nature, but can be created
and detected during energetic collisions of other particles, as is done in particle accelerators.
1.2.4.2 Subatomic particles
Modern Particle-Physics research is focused on subatomic particles, which have less
structure than atoms. These include atomic constituents such as Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons
(Protons and Neutrons are actually composite particles, made up of Quarks), particles produced by
radiative and scattering processes such as Photons, Neutrinos and Muons, as well as a wide range of
exotic particles.
Strictly speaking, the term particle is a misnomer because the dynamics of Particle-Physics
are governed by QM. As such, they exhibit wave-particle duality, displaying particle-like behavior
under certain experimental conditions and wave-like behavior in others (more technically they are
described by state vectors in Hilbert space). Particle Physicists use the term “elementary particles”
to refer to objects such as Electrons and Photons, with the understanding that these “particles”
display wave-like properties as well.
All the particles and their interactions observed to date can be described by a Quantum Field
Theory (QFT) called the Standard Model (SM). The SM has 40 species of elementary particles (24
Fermions, 12 Vector Bosons, and 4 Scalars), which can combine to form composite particles,
accounting for the hundreds of other species of particles discovered since the 1960’s.
The SM has been found to agree with almost all the experimental tests conducted to date.
However, most particle Physicists believe that it is an incomplete description of Nature, and that a
more fundamental theory awaits discovery. In recent years, measurements of Neutrino mass have
provided the first experimental deviations from the SM.
Particle-Physics has had a large impact on the philosophy of science. Some particle
Physicists adhere to reductionism, a point of view that has been criticized and defended by
philosophers and scientists.
1.2.4.3 History
The idea that all matter is composed of elementary particles dates to at least the 6th century
BC. The philosophical doctrine of atomism was studied by ancient Greek philosophers such as
Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. In the 19th century John Dalton, through his work on
stoichiometry, concluded that each element of nature was composed of a single, unique type of
particle.
Dalton and his contemporaries believed these were the fundamental particles of nature and
thus named them atoms, after the Greek word “atomos”, meaning “indivisible”. However, near the
end of the century, Physicists discovered that atoms were not, in-fact, the fundamental particles of
nature, but conglomerates of even smaller particles.
The early 20th century explorations of Nuclear and Quantum-Physics culminated in proofs
of Nuclear Fission in 1939 by Lise Meitner (based on experiments by Otto Hahn), and Nuclear
Fusion by Hans Bethe in the same year. These discoveries gave rise to an active industry of
generating one atom from another, even rendering possible (although not profitable) the
transmutation of lead into gold. They also led to the development of Nuclear Weapons.
45

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s, a bewildering variety of particles were found in
scattering experiments. This was referred to as the “particle zoo”. This term was deprecated after
the formulation of the SM during the 1970’s in which the large numbers of particles were explained
as combinations of a (relatively) small number of fundamental particles.
1.2.4.4 Standard Model (SM)
The current state of the classification of elementary particles in the SM describes the Strong,
Weak and ElectroMagnetic fundamental forces utilising mediating Gauge Bosons. The species of
Gauge Bosons are the Gluons, W-, W+, Z Bosons and Photons. The model also contains 24
fundamental particles which are the constituents of matter. Finally, it predicts the existence of the
Higgs Boson, which has yet to be discovered.
1.2.4.5 Experiment
The major laboratories researching Particle-Physics are (listed in alphabetical order):
i. Brookhaven National Laboratory, located on Long Island, USA. Its main facility is the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, colliding heavy ions such as gold ions and Protons.
ii. Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (Novosibirsk, Russia).
iii. CERN, located on the French-Swiss border near Geneva. Its main project is now the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC). Earlier facilities include LEP, the Large Electron-Positron
collider, which was stopped in 2001 and which is now dismantled to give way for LHC;
and Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS).
iv. DESY, located in Hamburg, Germany. Its main facility is HERA colliding Electrons,
Positrons and Protons.
v. Fermilab, located near Chicago, USA. Its main facility is the Tevatron, colliding Protons
and Anti-Protons.
vi. KEK the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization located in Tsukuba, Japan. It is
the home of a number of interesting experiments such as K2K (a Neutrino oscillation
experiment) and Belle (an experiment measuring the CP-Symmetry violation in the BMeson).
vii. SLAC, located near Palo Alto, USA. Its main facility is PEP-II, colliding Electrons and
Positrons.
The techniques required to do modern experimental Particle-Physics are quite varied and
complex, constituting a sub-specialty nearly completely distinct from the theoretical side
of the field.
1.2.4.6 Theory
Theoretical Particle-Physics attempts to develop the models, theoretical framework, and
mathematical tools to understand current experiments and make predictions for future experiments.
There are several major efforts in theoretical Particle-Physics today and each includes a range of
different activities and the efforts in each area are interrelated.
One of the major activities in theoretical Particle-Physics is the attempt to better understand
the SM and its tests. Extracting the parameters of the SM from experiments with less uncertainty
probes the limits of the SM and therefore expands our understanding of nature. These efforts are
made challenging by the difficult nature of calculating many quantities in Quantum
ChromoDynamics (QCD).
The second major effort is in model building where scientists develop ideas for what Physics
may lie beyond the SM (at higher energies or smaller distances). This work is often motivated by
the hierarchy problem and is constrained by existing experimental data. It may involve work on
46

www.deltagroupengineering.com

supersymmetry, alternatives to the Higgs mechanism, extra spatial dimensions or other ideas.
The third major effort in theoretical Particle-Physics is String Theory (ST). String theorists
attempt to construct a unified description of QM and GR by building a theory based upon small
strings and branes rather than particles. If the theory is successful, it may be considered a “Theory
of Everything” (ToE). There are also other areas of work in theoretical Particle-Physics ranging
from particle Cosmology to Loop-Quantum-Gravity (LQG).
End of verbatim quotation.

Figure 4.2: credit: USDoE, http://pdg.lbl.gov/barnett/extradim.html,

47

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.5 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Theory
1.2.5.1 Synopsis
The following statements are verbatim quotations from [24].
1.2.5.1.1 Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE)
1.2.5.1.1.1 General
In Physics, Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a QM system may
possess, representing the energy of the ground state. The field associated with ZPE is termed the
Zero-Point-Field (ZPF). The concept of ZPE was proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in
1913, which they originally called “residual energy” or “Nullpunktsenergie”.
All QM systems are associated with ZPE. The term arises commonly in reference to the
ground state of the quantum harmonic oscillator and its null oscillations. In QFT, it is a synonym
for vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space and is the
underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter. In Cosmology, ZPE
is taken to be the origin of the Cosmological constant.
It is widely accepted that ZPE results in the existence of most (if not all) of the fundamental
forces and the effects derived from them. They have been observed in various experiments such as
the spontaneous emission of light, gamma radiation, Van-Der Waals bonds and the Lamb shift etc.
Importantly, the ZPE of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect and is directly observable in
nanoscale devices.
It is thought (but not yet demonstrated) to have consequences for the behavior of the
Universe on a Cosmological scale. Because ZPE is the lowest possible energy a system can have, it
cannot be removed. Despite the definition, the concept of ZPE has attracted the attention of amateur
inventors with the prospect of extracting “free energy” from the vacuum.
Numerous perpetual motion and other pseudoscientific devices, often called free energy
devices exploiting the idea, have been proposed. As a result of this activity and its intriguing
theoretical explanation, it has taken on a life of its own in popular culture, appearing in science
fiction books, games and movies.
1.2.5.1.1.2 Elementary particles
QFT, which describes interactions between elementary particles in terms of fields, allows a
contribution to ZPE (even when no particles are present) via the ZPF. An example is the Casimir
effect whereby two metal plates experience a small attractive force between them. This has been
attributed to the dependence on the ZPF and the distance between the plates. This has important
consequences on a Cosmological scale because ZPE is expected to contribute to the Cosmological
constant, which affects the expansion of the Universe.
The calculation of the ZPE in QFT, in terms of Feynman diagrams, may be considered as
accounting for virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations), which are created and
destroyed out of the vacuum. Additional contributions to the ZPE come from spontaneous
symmetry breaking in QFT.
1.2.5.1.1.3 Implications
Vacuum energy has a number of consequences. For one, vacuum fluctuations are always
created as particle / antiparticle pairs. The creation of these “virtual particles” near the event horizon
of a Black-Hole (BH) has been hypothesised by Physicist Stephen Hawking to be a mechanism for
the eventual “evaporation” of BH’s such that the net energy of the Universe remains zero so long as
48

www.deltagroupengineering.com

the particle pairs annihilate each other within Planck time.
If one of the pair is pulled into the BH before this, then the other particle becomes “real” and
energy / mass is radiated into space from the BH. The loss is cumulative and could result in the
Black-Hole's disappearance over time. The time required is dependent upon the mass of the BH, but
could be in the order of “10100” years for large solar-mass BH’s.
Grand Unification Theory (GUT) predicts a non-zero Cosmological constant from the
energy of vacuum fluctuations. Examining normal physical processes with knowledge of these field
phenomena leads to interesting insights into ElectroDynamics (ED).
1.2.5.1.2 History
In 1900, Max Planck derived the formula for the energy of a single “radiator” (i.e. a
vibrating atomic unit) as:
(W.1)
In 1913, using this formula as a basis, Albert Einstein and Otto Stern published a paper of
great significance in which they suggested for the first time the existence of energy that all
oscillators have at absolute zero. They called this “residual energy” and then “Nullpunktsenergie”
(in German), which later became translated as ZPE. They carried out an analysis of the specific heat
of Hydrogen gas at low temperature and concluded that the data is best represented if the vibration
energy is taken to have the form,
(W.2)
Thus, according to this expression - even at absolute zero, the energy of an atomic system has the
value “½hν”.
In 1934, Georges Lemaître used an unusual perfect-fluid equation of state to interpret the
Cosmological constant as a result of ZPE. In 1973, Edward Tryon proposed that the Universe may
be a large scale QM vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative
gravitational potential energy.
During the 1980’s, many attempts were made to relate fields that generate vacuum energy to
specific fields that were predicted by the GUT and to use observations of the Universe to confirm it.
So far, these efforts have failed and the exact nature of the particles or fields that generate ZPE,
with a density such as that required by inflation theory, remains a mystery.
1.2.5.1.3 Foundational Physics
In classical Physics, the energy of a system is defined in relation to “some” given state
(often called the reference state). Typically, one might associate a motionless system with zero
energy, although doing so is purely arbitrary. However, in quantum Physics it is natural to associate
the energy with the expectation value of a certain operator - the Hamiltonian of the system.
For almost all QM systems, the lowest possible expectation value that this operator can
obtain is not zero; the lowest possible value is called the ZPE (caveat: if we add an arbitrary
constant to the Hamiltonian, we get another theory which is physically equivalent to the previous
Hamiltonian - because of this, only relative energy is observable, not the absolute energy).
The origin of non-zero minimal energy can be intuitively understood in terms of the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This principle states that the position and momentum of a QM
particle cannot both be known arbitrarily accurately. If the particle is confined to a potential well,
then its position is at least partly known - it must be within the well.
Thus, one may deduce that within the well, the particle cannot have zero momentum
otherwise the uncertainty principle would be violated. Because the kinetic energy of a moving
49

www.deltagroupengineering.com

particle is proportional to the square of its velocity, it cannot be zero either. This example however,
is not applicable to a free particle - the kinetic energy of which can be zero.
1.2.5.1.4 Varieties of ZPE
The concept of ZPE occurs in a number of situations and it is important that they be
distinguished. In ordinary QM, the ZPE is the energy associated with the ground state of the system.
The most famous example is the energy associated with the ground state of the quantum harmonic
oscillator. More precisely, the ZPE is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian of the system.
In QFT, the fabric of space is visualised as consisting of fields and every point in space and
time being a quantised simple harmonic oscillator, with neighboring oscillators interacting. In this
case, one has a contribution of energy from every point in space, resulting in infinite ZPE. The ZPE
is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian.
In Quantum Perturbation Theory (QPT), it is sometimes stated that the contribution of oneloop and multi-loop Feynman diagrams, to elementary particle propagators, are the contributions of
vacuum fluctuations (ZPE) to particle masses.
1.2.5.1.5 Experimental evidence
The simplest experimental evidence for the existence of ZPE in QFT is the Casimir effect.
This effect was proposed in 1948 by Dutch Physicist Hendrik B. G. Casimir, who considered the
quantised EM field between a pair of grounded, neutral metal plates. A small force can be measured
between the plates ascribable to a change of the ZPE of the EM field between the plates.
Although the Casimir effect at first proved difficult to measure because its manifestation can
be seen only at very small distances, it is taking on increasing importance in nanotechnology. The
Casimir effect can be accurately measured in specially designed nanoscale devices, and increasingly
needs to be taken into account in the design and manufacturing processes of small devices. It can
exert significant forces and stress on nanoscale devices, causing them to bend, twist, stick or break.
Other experimental evidence includes spontaneous emissions of light (Photons) by atoms
and nuclei, the observed Lamb shift of positions of energy levels of atoms and the anomalous value
of the Electron’s gyromagnetic ratio etc.
1.2.5.1.6 Gravitation and Cosmology
In Cosmology, ZPE offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive
values of the proposed Cosmological constant. In brief, if the energy is “really there”, then it should
exert a gravitational force. In General Relativity (GR), mass and energy are equivalent; either
produces a gravitational field.
One obvious difficulty with this association is that the ZPE of the vacuum is absurdly large.
Naively, it is infinite, but one must argue that new Physics takes over at the Planck scale, and so its
growth is cut off at that point. Even so, what remains is so large that it would visibly bend space,
and thus, there seems to be a contradiction.
There is no easy way out, and reconciling the seemingly huge ZPE of space with the
observed zero or small Cosmological constant has become one of the important problems in
theoretical Physics. Subsequently, it has become a criterion by which to judge a candidate “Theory
of Everything” (ToE).
1.2.5.1.7 Propulsion theories
Another area of research in the field of ZPE is how it could be used for propulsion. NASA
and British Aerospace both have programs running to this end, though practical technology is still a
long way off. For any success in this area, it would have to be possible to create repulsive effects in
50

www.deltagroupengineering.com

the quantum vacuum, which according to theory should be possible. Experiments to produce and
measure these effects are planned for the future.
Note: Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff have proposed that an accelerated massive object interacts with
the ZPF to produce an EM drag force giving rise to the phenomenon of inertia.
1.2.5.1.8 Popular culture
The Casimir effect has established ZPE as an uncontroversial and scientifically accepted
phenomenon. However, the term ZPE has also become associated with a highly controversial area
of human endeavour – i.e. so-called “free energy” devices, similar to perpetual motion machines of
the past. These devices purport to “tap” the ZPF and somehow extract energy from it, thus
providing an “inexhaustible”, cheap, and non-polluting energy source.
Controversy arises when such devices are promoted without scientifically acceptable proof
that they tap the energy sources claimed. Promoters of a device frequently demonstrate no
understanding of how the device might do so; they may demonstrate misunderstanding of widely
accepted scientific facts and methods, in development or communication of a theory concerning a
device; and they generally have made no attempt to investigate simpler explanations for the claimed
performance of a device.
Any of these behaviours are liable to taint the reputations of those involved with such
devices, and qualified researchers are therefore likely to be reluctant to make any attempt to verify
or even seriously examine such a device unless its promoters demonstrate enough competence to be
taken seriously.
End of verbatim quotation.
1.2.5.2 Spectral Energy Density (SED)
An extremely important development in ZPF Theory - utilised as a foundation for the EGM
construct, is the concept of Spectral Energy Density (SED). This quantifies the spectral energy
distribution of ZPE within the ZPF and may be described in terms of the energy density per
frequency mode by,
ρ 0( ω )

2 .h .ω
c

3

3

(3.47)

where, “h” denotes Planck’s Constant [6.6260693 x10-34(Js)] and “ω” is in “(Hz)”.
1.2.6 The Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity
The Polarizable Vacuum (PV) refers to an analogue of GR to describe gravity in optical
terms offering the following,
i. The potential to replace 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.
iii. The potential to provide a physical mechanism for how space-time “gets curved” in GR,
suggesting the possibility of “metric engineering” for spacecraft propulsion etc.
The Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity is an optical representation such that the
curvature of the space-time manifold is expressed in terms of a Refractive Index “KPV”. The value
of “KPV” of a solid spherical object with homogeneous mass-energy distribution (i.e. a weak field
isomorphic approximation to GR) is given by,
51

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.

K PV e

G .M
2
r .c

(3.55)

where,
Variable
KPV

e
G
M
r
c

Description
Units
Refractive Index of a gravitational field in the PV model
of gravity, only contributing significantly when a large
gravitational mass (i.e. a strong gravitational field) is
None
considered. For weak gravitational fields, the effect is
approximated to KPV(r,M) = 1.
Exponential function
Gravitational constant
m3kg-1s-2
Mass
kg
Magnitude of position vector from centre of mass
m
Velocity of light in a vacuum
m/s
Table 4.1,

1.2.7 Dimensional Analysis Techniques and Buckingham’s “Π” (Pi) Theory
1.2.7.1 The principles
The following statement is a verbatim quotation from [24]
Dimensional Analysis is a conceptual tool often applied in Physics, Chemistry, and
engineering to understand physical situations involving a mix of different kinds of physical
quantities. It is routinely used by physical scientists and engineers to check the plausibility of
derived equations. Only like dimensioned quantities may be added, subtracted, compared, or
equated.
When like or unlike dimensioned quantities are multiplied or divided, their dimensions are
likewise multiplied or divided. When dimensioned quantities are raised to a power or a power root,
the same is done to the dimensions attached to those quantities. The dimensions of a physical
quantity is associated with symbols such as “M, L, T” which represent mass, length and time, each
raised to rational powers. For instance, the dimension of the physical variable speed is “distance /
time (L/T)” and the dimension of force is “mass × distance / time² (ML/T²)”. In mechanics, every
dimension can be expressed in terms of distance (which Physicists often call “length”), time and
mass, or alternatively in terms of force, length and mass.
Depending on the problem, it may be advantageous to choose one or another set of
dimensions. In ElectroMagnetism, for example, it may be useful to use dimensions of “M, L, T, and
Q”, where “Q” represents the quantity of electric charge. The units of a physical quantity are
defined by convention, related to some standard; e.g. length may have units of meters, feet, inches,
miles or micrometres; but length always has dimension “L” whether it is measured in meters, feet,
inches, miles or micrometres.
In the most primitive form, dimensional analysis may be used to check the “correctness” of
physical equations: in every physically meaningful expression, only quantities of the same
dimension can be added or subtracted. Moreover, the two sides of any equation must have the same
dimensions. For example, the mass of a rat and the mass of a flea may be added, but the mass of a
flea and the length of a rat cannot be added.
Furthermore, the arguments to exponential, trigonometric and logarithmic functions must be
dimensionless numbers. The logarithm of “3(kg)” is undefined, but the logarithm of “3” is “0.477”.
It should be noted that very different physical quantities may have the same dimensions: work and
torque, for example, have the same dimensions, “M L2T-2”.
An equation with torque on one side and energy on the other would be dimensionally
52

www.deltagroupengineering.com

correct, but cannot be physically correct! However, torque multiplied by an angular twist measured
in (dimensionless) radians is work or energy. The radian is the mathematically natural measure of
an angle and is the ratio of arc of a circle swept by such an angle divided by the radius of the circle.
The value of a dimensional physical quantity is written as the product of a unit within the
dimension and a dimensionless numerical factor. When like dimensioned quantities are added,
subtracted or compared, these dimensioned quantities must be expressed in consistent units so that
the numerical values of these quantities may be directly added or subtracted. But, conceptually,
there is no problem adding quantities of the same dimension expressed in different units.
Buckingham “Π” (Pi) Theory (BPT) forms the basis of the central tool of Dimensional
Analysis. This theorem describes how every physically meaningful equation involving “n” variables
can be equivalently rewritten as an equation of “n-m” dimensionless parameters, where “m” is the
number of fundamental dimensions used. Furthermore, and most importantly, it provides a method
for computing these dimensionless parameters from the given variables, even if the form of the
equation is still unknown.
BPT is a systematic method of Dimensional Analysis, whereby variables that are relevant to
a particular situation are formed into dimensionless Π groups. The number of dimensionless groups
equals the original number of variables minus the number of fundamental dimensions present in all
the variables. This analysis reduces the degrees of freedom for a physical situation and can be used
to guide experimental design programs.
Proofs of BPT often begin by considering the space of fundamental and derived physical
units as a vector space, with the fundamental units as basis vectors and with multiplication of
physical units as the “vector addition” operation and raising to powers as the “scalar multiplication”
operation. Making the physical units match across sets of physical equations can then be regarded
as imposing linear constraints in the physical unit vector space.
Two systems for which these parameters coincide are called similar; they are equivalent for
the purposes of the equation and the experimentalist whom wishes to determine the form of the
equation can choose the most convenient one. BPT uses linear algebra: the space of all possible
physical units can be seen as a vector space over rational numbers if we represent a unit as the set of
exponents needed for the fundamental units (with a power of zero if the particular fundamental unit
is not present). Multiplication of physical units is then represented by vector addition within this
vector space. The algorithm of BPT is essentially a Gauss-Jordan elimination carried out in this
vector space.
End of verbatim quotation.
1.2.7.2 The atomic bomb
The following statement is a verbatim quotation from [24]
In 1941, “Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor” used Dimensional Analysis to estimate the energy released
in an atomic bomb explosion. The first atomic bomb was detonated in New Mexico on July 16,
1945. In 1947, movies of the explosion were declassified, allowing “Sir Taylor” to complete the
analysis and estimate the energy released in the explosion, even though the energy release was still
classified! The actual energy released was later declassified and its value was remarkably close to
Taylor's estimate.
Taylor supposed that the explosive process was adequately described by five
physical quantities, the time “t” since the detonation, the energy “E” which is released at a single
point in space at detonation, the radius “R” of the shock wave at time “t”, the ambient atmospheric
pressure “p” and density “ρ”. There are only three fundamental physical units in this combination
(MLT) which yield Taylor's equation. Once the radius of the explosion as a function of the time was
known, the energy of the explosion was calculated.
End of verbatim quotation.
53

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.7.3 The birth and foundations of Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)
Historically, Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s) and BPT has been used extensively
in the engineering field to model, predict and optimise fluid flow and heat transfer. However, in
principle, it may be applied to any system that is dynamically, kinematically and geometrically
founded – such as the geometric space-time manifold. Typical examples of experimentally verified
Π groupings in fluid mechanics are Froude, Mach, Reynolds and Weber numbers. Thermodynamic
examples are Eckert, Grashof, Prandtl and Nusselt numbers. Moreover, the Planck Length
commonly used in theories of Quantum Gravity shares its origins with the Dimensional Analysis
Technique (the foundation of BPT).
The application of BPT is not an attempt to answer fundamental physical questions but to
apply universally accepted engineering design methodologies to real world problems. It is primarily
an experimental process. It is not possible to derive system representations without involving
experimental relationship functions. These functions incorporate all variables within the
experimental environment that influence results and behaviour including parameters that might
otherwise be neglected due to practical calculation limitations, in theoretical analysis. Once the Π
groupings have been formed, they may be manipulated or simplified as required to test ideas and
applied to determine experimental relationship functions. Ultimately, these functions validate the
system equations developed.
Ideally, experimental relationship functions possess values of unity relative to the distant
observer. This indicates a loss-less relationship between an Experimental Prototype (EP) and the
mathematical model utilised to describe the EP. Typically, due to viscous forces and energy loss /
transformation effects, experimental relationship functions take extreme values of magnitude (i.e.
large or small). If we consider the EP to be the ambient gravitational environment (i.e. local spacetime manifold) and the mathematical model to be the PV model of gravity, then we expect all
experimental relationship functions to approach unity. The reasons for this are:
i. The true nature of gravity is currently unknown to Physics.
ii. The mathematical descriptions used to predict gravitational behaviour are constructed
from observation of effects, not causes.
iii. A mathematical description is nothing more than just that. It is a non-physical
manifestation of human understanding. For example, GR is a Tensor based mathematical
formulation only - there is no physical evidence to validate the contention that the true
nature of space-time is physically geometric with Planck scale grid lines radiating from
Cosmological objects.
iv. There can be no physical losses between two mathematical representations of the same
thing.
BPT commences with the selection of significant parameters. There are no right or wrong
choices with respect to the selection of these parameters. Often, the experience of the researcher
exerts the greatest influence to the beginning of the process and the choice of significant parameters
is validated (or refuted) by experimentation.
When applying BPT, it is important to avoid repetition of dimensions. Subsequently, it is
often desirable to select variables that may be formulated by the manipulation of simpler variables
already chosen. The selected variables used in EGM are shown by Storti et. Al. in [1]. These
parameters were selected to facilitate experiments utilising ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields and
assume that there is a physical device to be tested, located on a laboratory test bench. The objective
is to utilise a superposition of EM fields to reduce the weight of a test-mass when placed in the
volume of space located directly above the device. Therefore, the significant parameters are those
factors that may affect the acceleration of the test-mass within this volume.
The selection of significant parameters involved the magnitude of vector quantities and
scalars. This avoids unnecessary repetition of fundamental units in accordance with the application
of BPT methodology. The significant vector magnitude parameters are acceleration, Magnetic field,
54

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Electric field and position. The scalar quantities are Electric charge and frequency.
Since static charge on the device or the test-mass may also exert strong Lorentz forces and
therefore accelerations, the scalar value of static charge is included to determine its contribution. If
the device is small then the distance between the surface of the device and the test-mass suspended
in the volume above it is trivial and that the magnitude of the position vector is usefully constant.
Storti et. Al. utilise BPT to relate gravitational acceleration, EM acceleration by the
superposition of applied fields, ZPF Theory and the PV model of gravity via Einstein’s equivalence
principle. Dimensionally, there is no difference between gravitational and EM acceleration. The
equivalence principle provides a well accepted vehicle for the logical application of BPT and
DAT’s to gravity. Much of Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics is built form the application of
BPT and DAT’s. BPT facilitates the ability to string together any number of variables in a way that
permits one to test one’s own idea. So, it is really a mix between science and art. There is nothing
wrong with any grouping formed utilising BPT, it is simply a question of how “well” a grouping
tends to fit physical observation.
To derive the PV spectrum, Storti et. Al. take the standard ZPF spectral energy density
equation that describes the energy density in a region of space as a smooth cubic distribution and
combine it with a Fourier distribution. This yields the beginning and endpoint of the spectrum. In
other words, objects with mass polarise the ZPF which may be described as a Fourier distribution at
the surface of the object. The surface is the equilibrium boundary between the energy contained
within the object and the polarized state of the ZPF surrounding it.
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. The ZPF spectrum
has the same frequency bandwidth as the EGM spectrum, but does not follow a Fourier distribution.
So, the EGM spectrum is the polarized 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.
DAT’s and BPT bring to the research and design table, the following key elements17:
• 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.
• It facilitates a “reverse engineering” approach to gravity if a region of space-time on
a laboratory test bench is considered to be the Experimental Prototype (EP) for the
mathematical model produced by the application of DAT’s and BPT. Subsequently,
the mathematical model can be applied to the EP for scaling purposes, leading to
gravity control experiments.
Note: DAT’s and BPT should be applied before numerical computations are done.
17

Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/kurs/matmod/1998h/
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/notes/buckingham/
55

www.deltagroupengineering.com

EGM develops a dynamic, kinematic and geometric equivalent of the ZPF, expressed in
Fourier terms, which describes gravity at the surface of the Earth as a PV. The EGM spectrum is a
simple, but extreme, extension of the EM spectrum. In the same way that radio waves, visible light,
ultra violet, x-rays and gamma rays exist, gravitational waves exist as a spectrum of frequencies.
The EGM spectrum is in fact the EM spectrum (subject to a Fourier distribution) but with an “end
point” approaching the Planck Frequency at conditions of maximum permissible energy density.
Typically, for the surface of the Earth for example, the vast majority of gravitational waves
exist well above the Terahertz (THz) range. It is extremely important to note that gravity does not
exist as a single wave; it exists as a spectrum of frequencies with a group propagation velocity of
zero. EGM does not differentiate between EM and gravitational spectra but does predict the
endpoint as being far above what we currently measure the EM spectrum to be.
NOTES

56

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8 EGM: the natural philosophy of fundamental particles
1.2.8.1 How was it derived?
To date, great strides have been made by GR to our understanding of gravity. It is an
excellent tool that represents 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. However, GR does
not easily facilitate engineering solutions that may allow us to design electromechanical devices
with which to affect the space-time metric.
If mankind wishes to engineer the space-time metric, alternative tools must be developed to
compliment those already available. Subsequently, the EGM methodology was derived to achieve
this goal. EGM is defined as the modification of vacuum polarisability by applied EM fields. It
provides a theoretical description of space-time as a PV derived from the superposition of EM
fields.
The PV representation of GR is a heuristic tool and is isomorphic to GR by weak field
approximation. Utilising EGM, EM fields may be applied to affect the state of the PV and thereby
facilitate interactions with the local gravitational field. BPT is a powerful tool that has been in
existence, tried and experimentally proven for many years. It is an excellent tool that may be
applied to the task of determining a practical relationship between gravitational acceleration and
applied EM fields. The underlying principle of BPT is the preservation of dynamic, kinematic and
geometric similarity between a mathematical model and an EP.
EGM is a term describing a hypothetical harmonic relationship between Electricity, Gravity
and Magnetism. The hypothesis may be mathematically articulated by the application of DAT’s and
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.
To understand the way in which EGM was derived, one requires a basic knowledge of
engineering principles. Primarily, EGM is a method of calculation (not a theory) based upon
fundamental engineering principles and techniques. It does not compete with or contradict the SM
of Particle-Physics in any manner.
The creation and development of EGM was driven by necessity. A scan of contemporary
approaches in gravitational Physics illustrates an obvious lack of mathematical tools facilitating
engineering of the space-time manifold. Or rather, engineering possibilities are obvious, but require
massive objects on a planetary, stellar or Galactic scale.
Therefore, to facilitate gravity control, a new tool is required permitting engineering of the
space-time manifold. To begin the process, we must first make some basic assumptions based upon
the availability and practicality of existing tools by which we may construct further tools. We shall
use one tool to build another. EGM is nothing more than an engineering tool constructed from other
engineering tools and should be always regarded as such.
Engineering is fundamentally a practical discipline that does not search for highly precise
numerical or exact results. Instead, it aims to achieve physically meaningful quantitative solutions.
Again, practicality and common sense must prevail and, by necessity, must commence with the
assumption that any realistic attempt at gravity control must physically fit on a laboratory test
bench. There is no benefit in developing a tool requiring non-practical scales of reality.
Einstein brought forth the concept that mass and energy are interchangeable. This is trivially
obvious by virtue of his now famous equation (E = mc2). This, combined with practical thinking,
clearly suggests that EM radiation is the mechanism of choice. Hence, we have established the basic
requirements going forward. That is, we are necessarily bounded in research and design terms by
practical benchtop EM fields.
The next step is to find a tool that facilitates the construction of relationships tying EM
fields to acceleration. For an experienced engineer, the answer is obvious. In situations where little
has been established previously, DAT's and BPT are solid first steps. In addition to being able to
57

www.deltagroupengineering.com

connect seemingly unrelated parameters, it also serves to minimise the number of experiments
required to investigate physical behaviour.
Mainstream understanding of gravity is based upon GR - a geometric approach. Assuming
Einstein was correct and the enormous collective scientific effort since 1905 has not been a poor
investment, it follows that any geometrically based engineering tool is an excellent starting point.
Being geometric in nature makes it ideally suited to gravitational problems in keeping with BPT.
However, a strict GR approach is unwieldy and a simpler description would be highly
advantageous. Subsequently, Storti et. Al. utilise the PV model of gravity as a substitute to GR,
which is isomorphic in the weak field, is conducive to engineering approaches and facilitates the
development of the EGM construct.
Thus far, we have established several of the baseline elements forming a skeletal EGM
structure. To add flesh, we require a way to relate the geometric output of BPT to the PV model of
gravity. The relationship between the two may be bridged by assuming the equivalence principle
applies cross discipline.
Considering the need for an EM mechanism, we shall assume that the PV model of gravity
denotes a polarized state of the ZPF representing a sinusoidal manifestation of the space-time
manifold by virtual particles, Photons or wavefunctions. Consequently, it follows that the
representation of gravity at a mathematical point by Fourier Harmonics is a useful tool by which to
represent the ZPF.
Therefore, we may relate the logic of the preceding arguments in a solution algorithm
constituting the EGM construct by five simple steps as follows,
i. Apply DAT's, BPT and similarity principles to combine Electricity, Magnetism and
resultant EM acceleration in the form of Π groupings.
ii. Apply the equivalence principle to the Π groupings formed in (i).
iii. Apply Fourier Harmonics to the equivalence principle.
iv. Apply ZPF Theory to Fourier Harmonics.
v. Apply the PV model of gravity to the ZPF.
Hence, the complete EGM derivation process flow was constructed by Storti et. Al. in [1-19]
as follows,
Dimensional Analysis Techniques

Buckingham Π Theory

General Modelling Equations

Amplitude and Frequency Spectra

General Similarity Equations

Harmonic Similarity Equations

Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations

nd
2 Reduction of Harmonic Similarity Equations
(Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations)

Spectral Similarity Equations

Fundamental Particle Properties, the Hydrogen Atom
Spectrum and the Casimir Force
Table 4.2,
58

www.deltagroupengineering.com

It was shown 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,
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.
Storti et. Al. showed 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),
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

59

(3.73)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

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 [4]. 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 Earth18 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

Figure19 3.7,

18
19

“RE” and “ME” denote the radius and mass of the Earth respectively.
Fundamental frequency (|nPV| = 1) as a function of planetary radial displacement.
60

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

Figure20 3.8,
1.2.8.2 Poynting Vector “Sω”
It was demonstrated by “Haisch, Puthoff and Rueda” in [25-28] that “inertia” may have
ElectroMagnetic (EM) origins due to the ZPF of Quantum-Electro-Dynamics (QED), manifested by
the Poynting Vector, via the equivalence principle. Hence, it follows that gravitational acceleration
may also be EM in nature and the Polarizable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity is an EM polarized
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)

Therefore, the Poynting Vector21 of the polarized 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 by Storti et. Al. showed that “>>99.99(%)” of the effect in a gravitational field
20
21

Harmonic cut-off mode “nΩ” and frequency “ωΩ” as a function of planetary radial displacement.
Per change in odd harmonic mode number.
61

www.deltagroupengineering.com

exists 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.
1.2.8.3 The size of the Proton, Neutron and Electron (radii: “rπ”, “rν”, “rε”)
In 2005, Storti et. Al. derived the mass-energy threshold of the Photon utilising “nΩ” and the
classical Electron radius as shown in [8], to within “4.3(%)” of the Particle Data Group (PDG)
value22 stated in [29], then proceeded to derive the mass-energies and radii of the Photon and
Graviton in [10] by the consistent utilisation of “nΩ”.
The method developed in [8] was re-applied in [9] to derive the sizes23 of the Electron,
Proton and Neutron. The motivation for this was to test the hypothesis presented in Ch. 1.2.8.1 by
direct comparison of the computed size values to experimentally measured fact. They believe 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.
To date, highly precise measurements have been made of the Root-Mean-Square (RMS)
charge radius of the Proton by [30] and the Mean-Square (MS) charge radius of the Neutron as
demonstrated in [31]. However, the calculations presented in [9] are considerably more accurate
than the physical measurements articulated in [30,31], lending support for the harmonic
representation of the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector stated in Eq. (3.63).
The basic approach utilised in [9] was to determine the equilibrium position between the
polarized 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 itself24.
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 polarized 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 [30]25,

22

Consistent with experimental evidence and interpretation of data.
From first principles and from a single paradigm.
24
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.
25
rπ = 0.8306(fm), rp = 0.8307 ± 0.012(fm).
23

62

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 [14] 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 [31]26,
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

3. π .r ν
8

2

. (1

x) . x

1

x x

3

2

(3.396)

27

where, “x” is solved numerically 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),

26
27

rν = 0.8269(fm), KS = -0.1133(fm2), KX = -0.113 ± 0.005(fm2).
x = 0.6829, rX = 0.8256 ± 0.018(fm).
63

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 result28 as stated in
[32],
9

r ε r e.

1.
2

ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

5

γ

(3.203)

where, “re” and “γ” [33] denote the classical Electron radius and Euler-Mascheroni constant
respectively.
1.2.8.4 The harmonic representation of fundamental particles
1.2.8.4.1 Establishing the foundations
Motivated by the physical validation of Eq. (3.199, 3.200), Storti et. Al. conducted thought
experiments in [9] 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 in [1-8] – 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(%)”.

1.2.8.4.2 Improving accuracy
Since the experimental value of the RMS charge radius of the Proton is considered by the
scientific community to be precisely known29, 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.
28
29

rε ≥ 0.0118(fm), γ = 0.577215664901533.
To a degree of accuracy significantly greater than the Electron or Neutron.
64

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(%)”.

1.2.8.4.3 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)

1.2.8.5 Identifying a mathematical pattern
Utilising Eq. (3.230ii), Storti et. Al. identify mathematical patterns in [11-13] 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).

65

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 range30 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

1.2.8.6 Results
1.2.8.6.1 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 [34] 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)
30

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) [35]
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.
66

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 [13].
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 [15].
v.
It is shown in [8,10,13] that the RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton are
“λh” and “1.5λh” respectively, in agreement with Quantum Mechanical (QM) models.
1.2.8.6.2 Recent developments
1.2.8.6.2.1 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.

67

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8.6.2.2 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.
1.2.8.6.2.3 Top Quark mass
1.2.8.6.2.3.1 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 [36] to,
“172.0” in 2005 [37], “172.5” in early 2006, then “171.4” in July 2006. [38]
Note: since the precise value of “mtq” is subject to frequent revision, we shall utilize the 2005 value
in the resolution of the dilemma as it sits between the 2006 values.
1.2.8.6.2.3.2 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
68

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(%)”.
1.2.8.7 Discussion
1.2.8.7.1 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 which 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, Storti et. Al. demonstrate in “Quinta Essentia, A Practical Guide to SpaceTime Engineering, Part 3: pg. 54 (see: Ref.)” that the probability of coincidence is “<< 10-38”
based upon the results shown in table (4.8),
Particle / Atom EGM Prediction
Proton (p)
rπ = 830.5957 x10-16(cm) [9]
rπE = 848.5274 x10-16(cm) [14]
rπM = 849.9334 x10-16(cm) [14]
rp = 874.5944 x10-16(cm) [14]
Neutron (n)
rν = 826.8379 x10-16(cm) [9]
69

Experimental Measurement
rπ = 830.6624 x10-16(cm) [30]
rπE = 848 x10-16(cm) [39,40]
rπM = 857 x10-16(cm) [39,40]
rp = 875.0 x10-16(cm) [35]
rX ≈ 825.6174 x10-16(cm) [14]

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

www.deltagroupengineering.com

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

where,
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

KS = -0.1133 x10-26(cm2) [14] KX = -0.113 x10-26(cm2) [31]
rνM = 878.9719 x10-16(cm) [14] rνM = 879 x10-16(cm) [39,40]
mtq(GeV) ≈ 172.0 [37]
mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4979 [12,17]
λA = 657.3290(nm) [16]
λB = 656.4696(nm) [41]
rx = 0.0527(nm) [16]
rBohr = 0.0529(nm) [35]
Table 4.8: experimentally verified EGM predictions,

< 0.296
< 0.003
< 3.64
< 0.131
< 0.353

“rπE” and “rπM” denote the Electric and Magnetic radii of the Proton respectively.
“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 [17-19].
1.2.8.7.2 The answers to some important questions
1.2.8.7.2.1 What causes harmonic patterns to form?
1.2.8.7.2.1.1 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).
1.2.8.7.2.1.2 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.
Therefore, harmonic patterns form due to inherent quantum characteristics and ZPF equilibrium.
70

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8.7.2.2 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 by
harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ” (i.e. by mass and ZPF equilibrium). Storti et. Al. showed in [5]
that the bulk of the PV spectral energy31 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 period32 “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.
1.2.8.7.2.3 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 [7] from [1-6] utilising Eq. (3.63,
3.67, 3.73).

31
32

“>> 99.99(%)”.
The inverse of “ωΩ”.
71

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8.7.2.4 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 [12] 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 [12] (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 [9]. 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.
1.2.8.7.2.5 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 [30,36-38,42-45], do not correlate to
EGM calculations.
1.2.8.7.2.6 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 [16] by treating the atom as “a system” in equilibrium with the
polarized ZPF.

72

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8.7.2.7 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 polarized ZPF (the objects own gravitational field). Therefore, since
fundamental particles with classical form factor denote fundamental states (or systems: Quarks in
the Proton and Neutron) of polarized ZPF equilibrium, it follows that only the three families will be
predicted.
1.2.8.8 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)
28 Bottom
Down
14 Strange
56
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
-1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
dq
sq
bq
(GeV)
< 4.27
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
4.13
<
m
≈ 113.9460(MeV)
bq
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)
8 Tau Neutrino
12
Electron Neutrino
2 Muon Neutrino
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
1,Colour,1
1,Weak Charge,10-6
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

73

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Legend
Leptons

Quarks

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
(i) *Where, “SC” denotes coupling strength at “1(GeV)”. [46]
(ii) The values of “Stω” in table (4.9) utilize the Proton as the reference particle. This is due to its RMS
charge radius and mass-energy being precisely known by physical measurement.

Name

Table 4.9: particle legend,
1.2.8.9 What are the most important results determined by the EGM construct?
The most important results determined by the EGM construct may be categorised into five
main areas as follows:
i. Polarisable Vacuum and Zero-Point-Field.
ii. Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant.
iii. All other particles.
iv. The Casimir Force.
v. The Planck scale and the Bohr radius.
1.2.8.9.1 PV and ZPF
1.2.8.9.1.1 Gravitational amplitude spectrum “CPV”
G.M .

C PV n PV, r , M

2

r

2
.
π n PV

(3.64)

1.2.8.9.1.2 Gravitational frequency spectrum “ωPV”
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r

ω PV n PV, r , M

(3.67)

1.2.8.9.1.3 Harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ”
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(3.73)

1.2.8.9.2 Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant
Note: Euler's Constant “γ” may be calculated by: (i) physical measurement of “mγγ” and (ii), the
assumption that “2 x rγγ” is precisely equal to the experimentally implicit value of the Planck
Length characterised by “Kλ x λh”.
1.2.8.9.2.1 The mass-energy of a Graviton “mgg”
mgg = 2mγγ

(3.216)

1.2.8.9.2.2 The mass-energy of a Photon “mγγ”
3

m γγ

h .
re

3

π .r e
2 .c .G.m e

.

512.G.m e
2

c .π

74

2

.

n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e

γ

2

(3.220)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8.9.2.3 The radius of a Photon “rγγ”
5

2

m γγ

r γγ r e .

m e .c

2

(3.225)

G.h . r µ

r γγ K ω .

c

3

(3.274)

1.2.8.9.2.4 The radius of a Graviton “rgg”
r gg

5

4 .r γγ

(3.227)

1.2.8.9.3 All Other Particles
1.2.8.9.3.1 The Fine Structure Constant “α”
α

2

.e

3

(3.204)

α

.e

(3.236)

1.2.8.9.3.2 Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio (the ratio of two particle spectra) “Stω”
2

ω Ω r 1, M 1

M1

ω Ω r 2, M 2

M2

5

9

.

r2

9

r1

St ω

(3.230)

1.2.8.9.3.3 Neutron Magnetic Radius “rνM”
r dr

r ν . ρ ch r νM

ρ ch ( r ) d r

(3.420)

1.2.8.9.3.4 Proton Electric Radius “rπE”
r dr
r ν . ρ ch r πE

ρ ch ( r ) d r

(3.423)

1.2.8.9.3.5 Proton Magnetic Radius “rπM”

r ν . ρ ch r πM

ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr

75

(3.426)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.8.9.3.6 Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius “rp”
r P r πE

1.
2

r νM

(3.429)

1.2.8.9.3.7 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)

1.2.8.10 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 )

0

5 .10

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,

76

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1 .
T Ω r π ,m p

16

ψ( 8,t)
ψ ( 10 , t )
ψ ( 12 , t )

5 .10

0

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,
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

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,

77

www.deltagroupengineering.com

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 .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,
1.2.8.11 Concluding remarks about EGM
A concise mathematical relationship, based upon homogeneity concepts inherent in BPT,
augmented with Fourier series, 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. Additionally, the representation predicts the existence of new fundamental particles not found
within the Standard Model – suggesting the following:
i.
An exciting avenue for community exploration, beyond the Standard Model.
ii.
The potential for new Physics at higher accelerator energies.
iii.
The potential for unification of fundamental particles.
iv.
Physical limitations on the value of two extremely important mathematical constants [i.e.
“π” and “γ”] at the QM level – subject to uncertainty principles.
NOTES

78

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.9 The Hubble Constant “H0”
The following statements are verbatim quotations from [24].
1.2.9.1 Description
Hubble’s Law is the statement in physical Cosmology that the red-shift in light coming from
distant Galaxies is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble
and Milton Humason in 1929 after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first
observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the most often
cited pieces of evidence in support of the “Big-Bang”. The most recent calculation of the constant,
using the satellite WMAP began in 2003, yielding a value of “71 ± 4(km/s/Mpc)”. As of August
2006, the figure had been refined using data from NASA's orbital Chandra X-ray Observatory to
“77(km/s/Mpc)” with an uncertainty of 15(%).
1.2.9.2 Discovery
In the decade before Hubble made his observations, a number of Physicists and
Mathematicians had established a consistent theory of the relationship between space and time by
using Einstein's field equations of GR. Applying the most general principles to the question of the
nature of the Universe yielded a dynamic solution that conflicted with the then prevailing notion of
a static Universe.
In 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived his famous equations from GR, showing that the
Universe might expand at a calculable rate. The parameter used by Friedman is known today as the
scale factor which can be considered as a scale invariant form of the proportionality constant of
Hubble's Law. Georges Lemaître independently found a similar solution in 1927. From the
Friedmann equations, the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric was derived for a fluid
with a given density and pressure. This idea of expanding space-time would eventually lead to the
“Big-Bang” theory of Cosmology.
Before the advent of modern Cosmology, there was considerable talk as to the size and
shape of the Universe. In 1920, a famous debate took place between Harlow Shapley and Heber D.
Curtis over this very issue with Shapley arguing for a small Universe the size of our “Milky-Way”
Galaxy and Curtis arguing that the Universe was much larger. The issue would be resolved in the
coming decade with Hubble's improved observations.
Edwin Hubble did most of his professional astronomical
observation work at Mount Wilson observatory, the world's most
powerful telescope at the time. His observations of Cepheid variable
stars in spiral nebulae enabled him to calculate the distances to these
objects. Surprisingly, these objects were discovered to be at distances
which placed them well outside the “Milky-Way”. The nebulae were
first described as “island Universes”, and it was only later that the
term “Galaxy” would be applied to them.
Combining his measurements of Galactic distances with Vesto
Slipher's measurements of the red-shifts, Hubble discovered a rough
proportionality of the objects’ distances with their red-shifts. Though
there was considerable scatter (now known to be due to peculiar
velocities), Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 Galaxies
he studied and obtained a value for the Hubble constant of 500(km/s/Mpc), which is much higher
than the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance calibrations - a frequent problem even
for modern astronomers.

79

www.deltagroupengineering.com

In 1958, the first good estimate of “H0”, 75(km/s/Mpc), was published by Allan Sandage.
But it would be decades before a consensus was achieved. After Hubble’s discovery was published,
Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the Cosmological constant which he had designed to allow
for a static solution to his equations. He would later term this work his “greatest blunder” since the
belief in a static Universe was what prevented him from predicting the expanding Universe.
Einstein would make a famous trip to Mount Wilson in 1931 to thank Hubble for providing the
observational basis for modern Cosmology.
1.2.9.3 Interpretation
The discovery of the linear relationship between recessional velocity and distance yields a
straightforward mathematical expression for Hubble’s Law as “v = H0D” where, “v” is the
recessional velocity due to red-shift, typically expressed in “km/s”. “H0” is Hubble's constant and
corresponds to the value of “H” (often termed the Hubble parameter which is time dependent) in the
Friedmann equations taken at the moment of observation denoted by the subscript “0”.
This value is the same throughout the Universe for a given conformal time. “D” is the
proper distance that the light had traveled from the Galaxy in the rest frame of the observer,
measured in “MegaParsecs” (Mpc). For relatively nearby Galaxies, the velocity “v” can be
estimated from the Galaxy’s red-shift “z” using the formula “v = zc “where, “c” is the speed of
light. For far away Galaxies, “v” can be determined from “z” by using the relativistic Doppler
Effect.
However, the best way to calculate the recessional velocity and its associated expansion rate
of space-time is by considering the conformal time associated with the Photon travelling from the
distant Galaxy. In very distant objects, “v” can be larger than “c”. This is not a violation of the
special relativity however because a metric expansion is not associated with any physical object’s
velocity.
In using Hubble's law to determine distances, only the velocity due to the expansion of the
Universe can be used. Since gravitationally interacting Galaxies move relative to each other,
independent of the expansion of the Universe, these relative velocities, called peculiar velocities,
need to be considered when applying Hubble's law.
The Finger of God Effect is one result of this phenomenon discovered in 1938 by Benjamin
Kenneally. In systems that are gravitationally bound, such as Galaxies or our planetary system, the
expansion of space is (more than) annihilated by the attractive force of gravity.
The mathematical derivation of an idealised Hubble’s Law for a uniformly expanding
Universe is a fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional Cartesian / Newtonian
coordinate space, which considered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and isotropic
(properties do not vary with location or direction).
Simply stated the theorem is
this: “Any two points which are
moving away from the origin, each
along straight lines and with speed
proportional to distance from the
origin, will be moving away from
each other with a speed proportional
to their distance apart”.
The ultimate fate and age of
the Universe can both be
determined by measuring the
Hubble
constant
today
and
extrapolating with the observed
value of the deceleration parameter,
uniquely characterised by values of total density parameter (Ω, Ω0).
80

www.deltagroupengineering.com

A so-called “closed Universe” (Ω, Ω0 > 1) comes to an end in a “Big-Crunch” and is
considerably younger than its Hubble age. An “open or flat Universe” (Ω, Ω0 ≤ 1) expands forever
and has an age that is closer its Hubble age. For the accelerating Universe that we inhabit, the age of
the Universe is coincidentally very close to the Hubble age.

Figure 4.6,
The value of Hubble parameter changes over time either increasing or decreasing depending
on the sign of the deceleration parameter “q” which is defined by,

(W.3)
In a Universe with a deceleration parameter equal to zero, it follows that “H = 1 / t”, where “t” is
the time since the “Big-Bang”. A non-zero, time-dependent value of “q” simply requires integration
of the Friedmann equations backwards from the present time to the time when the comoving
horizon size was zero.
It was long thought that “q” was positive, indicating that the expansion is slowing down due
to gravitational attraction. This would imply an age of the Universe less than “1 / H”, for instance, a
value for “q = ½” (one theoretical possibility) would give the age of the Universe as “2/3⋅H-1”. The
discovery in 1998 that “q” is apparently negative means that the Universe could actually be older
than “1 / H”. In-fact, independent estimates of the age of the Universe come out fairly close to
“1/H”.
Note: we may define the “Hubble age” (also known as the “Hubble time” or “Hubble period”) of
the Universe as “1 / H”.
1.2.9.4 Olbers’ paradox
The expansion of space summarised by the “Big-Bang” interpretation of Hubble’s Law is
relevant to the old conundrum known as Olbers' paradox: if the Universe were infinite, static, and
filled with a uniform distribution of stars (notice that this also requires an infinite number of stars),
then every line of sight in the sky would end on a star, and the sky would be as bright as the surface
of a star. However, the night sky is largely dark. Since the 1600’s, astronomers and other thinkers
have proposed many possible ways to resolve this paradox, but the currently accepted resolution
81

www.deltagroupengineering.com

depends in part upon the “Big-Bang” theory and in part upon the Hubble expansion.
In a Universe that exists for a finite amount of time, only the light of finitely many stars has
had a chance to reach us yet, and the paradox is resolved. Additionally, in an expanding Universe
distant objects recede from us, causing the light emanating from them to be red-shifted and
diminished in brightness. Both effects contribute (the red-shift being the more important of the two;
remember the original paradox was couched in terms of a static Universe) to the darkness of the
night sky, providing a kind of confirmation for the Hubble expansion of the Universe.
1.2.9.5 Measuring the Hubble constant
For most of the second half of the 20th century the value of “H0” was estimated to be 5090(km/s/Mpc). The value of the Hubble constant was the topic of a long and rather bitter
controversy between Gérard de Vaucouleurs who claimed the value was 80 and Allan Sandage who
claimed the value was 40. In 1996, a debate moderated by John Bahcall between Gustav Tammann
and Sidney van den Bergh was held in similar fashion to the earlier Shapley-Curtis debate over
these two competing values.
This difference was partially resolved with the introduction of the Lambda-CDM model of
the Universe in the late 1990’s. With these model observations of high-red-shift clusters at X-ray
and microwave wavelengths using the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect, measurements of anisotropies in
the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and optical surveys all gave a value of
around 70 for the constant.
In particular the Hubble Key Project (led by Dr. Wendy L. Freedman, Carnegie
Observatories) gave the most accurate optical determination in May 2001 with its final estimate of
“72 ± 8(km/s/Mpc)”, consistent with a measurement of “H0” based upon Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect
observations of many Galaxy clusters having similar accuracy. The highest accuracy CMBR
determinations were “71 ± 4(km/s/Mpc)” by WMAP in 2003, and “70 +2.4/-3.2(km/s/Mpc)” for
measurements up to 2006.
The consistency of the measurements from all three methods lends support to both the
measured value of “H0” and the Lambda-CDM model. A value for “q” measured from standard
candle observations of “Type Ia supernovae”, which was determined in 1998 to be negative,
surprised many astronomers with the implication that the expansion of the Universe is currently
“accelerating” (although the Hubble factor is still decreasing with time).
In August 2006, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, a team from NASA's Marshall
Space Flight Center (MSFC) found the Hubble constant to be “77(km/s/Mpc)”, with an uncertainty
of about 15(%).
End of verbatim quotation.
Note: the Particle Data Group (PDG) estimate “H0” to be “71(km/s/Mpc)”.

82

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.10 CMBR temperature

Figure 4.7: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,
83

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The following statements are verbatim quotations from [24].
1.2.10.1 Description
In Cosmology, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), also referred as
relic radiation, is a form of ElectroMagnetic radiation discovered in 1965 that fills the entire
Universe. It has a thermal “2.725(K)” Black-Body spectrum which peaks in the microwave range at
a frequency of “160.4(GHz)”, corresponding to a wavelength of “1.9(mm)”. Most cosmologists
consider this radiation to be the best evidence for the hot “Big-Bang” model of the Universe.
1.2.10.2 Features
The Cosmic Microwave Background is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000: the RootMean-Square (RMS) variations are only “18(µK)”. The Far-Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer
(FIRAS) instrument on the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite has carefully
measured the spectrum of the CMBR. FIRAS compared the CMBR with a reference “Black-Body”
and no difference could be seen in their spectra.
Any deviations from the “Black-Body” form that might still remain undetected in the
CMBR spectrum over the wavelength range from “0.5 - 5(mm)” must have a weighted RMS value
of (at most) 50 parts per million [0.005(%)] of the CMBR peak brightness. This made the CMBR
spectrum the most precisely measured “Black-Body” spectrum in nature.
The CMBR is a prediction of “Big-Bang” theory such that the early Universe was made up
of hot plasma of Photons, Electrons and Baryons. The Photons were constantly interacting with the
plasma through Thomson scattering. As the Universe expanded, adiabatic cooling (of which the
Cosmological red-shift is an on-going symptom) caused the plasma to cool until it became
favourable for Electrons to combine with Protons and form Hydrogen atoms.
This happened at around “3,000(K)” or when the Universe was approximately 380,000 years
old. At this point, the Photons did not scatter off the neutral atoms and began to travel freely
through space. This process is called recombination or decoupling (referring to Electrons combining
with nuclei and to the decoupling of matter and radiation respectively).
The Photons have continued cooling ever since; they have now reached “2.725(K)” and their
temperature will continue to drop as long as the Universe continues expanding. Accordingly, the
radiation from the sky we measure today comes from a spherical surface, called the surface of last
scattering, from which the Photons that decoupled from interaction with matter in the early
Universe, 13.7 Billion years ago, are just now reaching observers on Earth.
The “Big-Bang” suggests that the CMBR fills all of observable space, and that most of the
radiation energy in the Universe is in the Cosmic Microwave Background, which only makes up a
small fraction of the total density of the Universe.
Two of the greatest successes of the “Big-Bang” theory are its prediction of its almost
perfect “Big-Bang” spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic
microwave background. The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has
precisely measured these anisotropies over the whole sky down to angular scales of “0.2°”.
These can be used to estimate the parameters of the standard Lambda-CDM model of the
“Big-Bang”. Some information, such as the shape of the Universe, can be obtained
straightforwardly from the CMBR, while others, such as the Hubble constant, are not constrained
and must be inferred from other measurements.

84

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.10.3 Relationship to the “Big-Bang”
1.2.10.3.1 General
The standard hot “Big-Bang” model of the Universe requires that the initial conditions for
the Universe are a Gaussian random field with a nearly scale invariant or Harrison-Zel'dovich
spectrum. This is, for example, a prediction of the cosmic inflation model. This means that the
initial state of the Universe is random, but in a clearly specified way such that meaningful
statements about the in-homogeneities in the Universe need to be statistical in nature. This leads to
cosmic variance in which the uncertainties in the variance of the largest scale fluctuations observed
in the Universe are difficult to accurately compare to theory.
1.2.10.3.2 Temperature
The CMBR and the Cosmological red-shift are together regarded as the best available
evidence for the “Big-Bang” theory. The discovery of the CMBR in the mid-1960s curtailed interest
in alternatives such as the steady state theory. The CMBR gives a snapshot of the Universe when,
according to standard Cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow Electrons and Protons
to form Hydrogen atoms, thus making the Universe transparent to radiation.
When it originated some 400,000 years after the “Big-Bang” – this time period is generally
known as the “time of last scattering” or the period of recombination or decoupling – the
temperature of the Universe was about “3,000(K)”. This corresponds to energy of about “0.25(eV)”,
which is much less than the “13.6(eV)” ionization energy of Hydrogen. Since then, the temperature
of the radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100 due to the expansion of the Universe.

Figure 4.8: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,
Note: as the Universe expands, the CMBR Photons are red-shifted, making the CMBR temperature
inversely proportional to the Universe’s scale length.
85

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.2.10.3.3 Primary anisotropy
The anisotropy of the CMBR is divided into two sorts: primary anisotropy – which is due to
effects which occur at the last scattering surface and before – and secondary anisotropy – which is
due to effects such as interactions with hot gas or gravitational potentials, between the last
scattering surface and the observer.
The structure of the CMBR anisotropies is principally determined by two effects: acoustic
oscillations and diffusion damping (also called collision-less damping or Silk damping). The
acoustic oscillations arise because of a competition in the Photon-Baryon plasma in the early
Universe. The pressure of the Photons tends to erase anisotropies, whereas the gravitational
attraction of the Baryons, moving at speeds “<< c”, makes them tend to collapse to form dense
haloes. These two effects compete to create acoustic oscillations which give the microwave
background its characteristic peak structure. The peaks correspond, roughly, to resonances in which
the Photons decouple when a particular mode is at its peak amplitude.

Figure 4.9: credit: http://pdg.lbl.gov/,
The peaks contain interesting physical signatures. The angular scale of the first peak
determines the curvature of the Universe (but not the topology of the Universe). The second peak –
truly the ratio of the odd peaks to the even peaks – determines the reduced Baryon density. The
third peak can be used to extract information about the dark matter density.
The location of the peaks also gives important information about the nature of the primordial
density perturbations. There are two fundamental types of density perturbations – called “adiabatic”
and “isocurvature”. A general density perturbation is a mixture of these two types and different
theories that purport to explain the primordial density perturbation spectrum predict different
mixtures.
For adiabatic density perturbations, the fractional over-density in each matter component
(Baryons, Photons etc.) is the same. That is, if there is “1(%)” more energy in Baryons than average
in one location, then with pure adiabatic density perturbations there is also “1(%)” more energy in
Photons and Neutrinos, than average. Cosmic inflation predicts that the primordial perturbations are
adiabatic.
86

www.deltagroupengineering.com

With isocurvature density perturbations, the sum of the fractional over-densities is zero.
That is, a perturbation with “1(%)” more energy in Baryons and Photons than average, and “2(%)”
lower energy in Neutrinos than average, would be a pure isocurvature perturbation. Cosmic strings
would produce mostly isocurvature primordial perturbations.
The CMBR spectrum is able to distinguish between these two types of perturbations because
they produce different peak locations. Isocurvature density perturbations produce a series of peaks
whose angular scales are roughly in the ratio “1 : 3 : 5 ...”, while adiabatic density perturbations
produce peaks whose locations are in the ratio “1 : 2 : 3 ...”. Observations are consistent with the
primordial density perturbations being entirely adiabatic, providing key support for inflation, and
ruling out many models of structure formation involving, for example, cosmic strings.
Collision-less damping is caused by two effects when the treatment of the primordial plasma
as a fluid begins to break down:
i. The increasing mean free path of the Photons as the primordial plasma becomes
increasingly rarefied in an expanding Universe.
ii. The finite thickness of the last scattering surface (LSS), which causes the mean free path
to increase rapidly during decoupling, even while some Compton scattering is still
occurring.
Note: these effects contribute about equally to the suppression of anisotropies on small scales, and
give rise to the characteristic exponential damping tail seen in the very small angular scale
anisotropies.
The thickness of the LSS refers to the fact that the decoupling of the Photons and Baryons
does not happen instantaneously, but instead requires an appreciable fraction of the age of the
Universe up to that era. One method to quantify exactly how long this process took uses the Photon
Visibility Function (PVF). This function is defined so that, denoting the PVF by “P(t)”, the
probability that a CMBR Photon last scattered between time “t” and “t + dt” is given by “P(t)dt”.
The maximum of the PVF (the time where it is most likely that a given CMBR Photon last
scattered) is known quite precisely. The first-year WMAP results put the time at which “P(t)” is
maximum as “372 +/- 14(kyr)”. This is often taken as the “time” at which the CMBR formed.
However, to figure out how long it took the Photons and Baryons to decouple, we need a measure
of the width of the PVF.
The WMAP team found that the PVF is greater than half of its maximum value (the “full
width at half maximum”, or FWHM) over an interval of “115 +/- 5(kyr)”. By this measure,
decoupling took place over roughly 115,000 years and when it was complete, the Universe was
roughly 487,000 years old.
1.2.10.3.4 Late time anisotropy
Since the “Big-Bang”, the CMBR was modified by several physical processes collectively
referred to as late-time anisotropy or secondary anisotropy. After the establishment of the CMBR,
ordinary matter in the Universe was mostly in the form of neutral Hydrogen and Helium atoms, but
from observations of Galaxies it seems that most of the volume of the Inter-Galactic Medium
(IGM) today consists of ionized material (since there are few absorption lines due to Hydrogen
atoms). This implies a period of reionization in which the material of the Universe breaks down into
Hydrogen ions.
The CMBR Photons scatter off free charges such as Electrons that are not bound in atoms.
In an ionized Universe, such Electrons have been liberated from neutral atoms by ionizing
(ultraviolet) radiation. Today these free charges are at sufficiently low density in most of the
volume of the Universe that they do not measurably affect the CMBR. However, if the IGM was
ionized at very early times when the Universe was denser, then there are two main effects on the
CMBR:
87

www.deltagroupengineering.com

i. Small scale anisotropies are erased (just as when looking at an object through fog, details
of the object appear fuzzy).
ii. The Physics of how Photons scatter off free Electrons (Thomson scattering) induces
polarisation anisotropies on large angular scales. This large angle polarisation is correlated
with the large angle temperature perturbation.
Note: both of these effects have been observed by the WMAP satellite, providing evidence that the
Universe was ionized at very early times.
Other effects that occur between reionization and our observation of the Cosmic Microwave
Background which cause anisotropies include the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect, such that a cloud of
high energy Electrons scatters the radiation, transferring some energy to the CMBR Photons and the
Sachs-Wolfe effect, thus causing Photons from the Cosmic Microwave Background to be
gravitationally red-shifted or blue-shifted due to changing gravitational fields.
1.2.10.3.5 Polarisation
The cosmic microwave background is polarized at the level of a few “µK”. There are two
types of polarisation, called E-modes and B-modes. This is in analogy to Electrostatics in which the
Electric Field (E-field) has a vanishing curl and the Magnetic Field (B-field) has a vanishing
divergence. The E-modes arise naturally from Thomson scattering in in-homogeneous plasma. The
B-modes, which have not been measured and are thought to have an amplitude of (at most)
“0.1(µK), are not produced from the plasma Physics alone. They are a signal from cosmic inflation
and are determined by the density of primordial gravitational waves. Detecting the B-modes will be
extremely difficult, particularly given that the degree of foreground contamination is unknown and
weak gravitational lensing signal mixes the relatively strong E-mode signal with the B-mode signal.
1.2.10.4 Microwave background observations
Subsequent to the discovery of the CMBR, hundreds of Cosmic Microwave Background
experiments have been conducted to measure and characterise the signatures of the radiation. The
most famous experiment is probably the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite that
orbited in 1989–1996, which detected and quantified the large scale anisotropies at the limit of its
detection capabilities.
Inspired by the initial COBE results of an extremely isotropic and homogeneous
background, a series of ground and balloon-based experiments quantified CMBR anisotropies on
smaller angular scales over the next decade. The primary goal of these experiments was to measure
the angular scale of the first acoustic peak, for which COBE did not have sufficient resolution.
These measurements were able to rule out cosmic strings as the leading theory of cosmic structure
formation, and suggested cosmic inflation was the right theory.
During the 1990’s, the first peak was measured with increasing sensitivity and by 2000, the
BOOMERanG experiment reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of
approximately “1°”. Together with other Cosmological data, these results implied that the geometry
of the Universe is flat. A number of ground-based interferometers provided measurements of the
fluctuations with higher accuracy over the next three years, including the Very Small Array, Degree
Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI) and the Cosmic Background Imager (CBI).
In June 2001, NASA launched a second CMBR space mission (WMAP) to make much
more precise measurements of the large scale anisotropies over the full sky. The first results from
this mission, disclosed in 2003, were detailed measurements of the angular power spectrum to
below degree scales, tightly constraining various Cosmological parameters. The results are broadly
consistent with those expected from cosmic inflation as well as various other competing theories,
and are available in detail at NASA's data center for CMBR.
88

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Although WMAP provided very accurate measurements of the large angular-scale
fluctuations in the CMBR (structures about as large in the sky as the moon), it did not have the
angular resolution to measure the smaller scale fluctuations which had been observed using
previous ground-based interferometers.
End of verbatim quotation.

Figure 4.10: WMAP - credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,

Figure 4.11: CMBR history - credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,
89

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Figure 4.12: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,

Figure 4.13: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,

Figure 4.14: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,

90

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Figure 4.15: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,

Figure 4.16: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,

Figure 4.17: credit: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/,

91

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

92

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2 Definition of Terms
2.1

Numbering conventions

2.2

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

2.2.1 Alpha Forms “αx”
• An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
2.2.2 Amplitude Spectrum
• A family of wavefunction amplitudes.
• The amplitudes associated with a frequency spectrum.
• See: Frequency Spectrum.
2.2.3 Background Field
• Reference to the background (ambient) gravitational field.
• Reference to the local gravitational field at the surface of the Earth.
2.2.4 Bandwidth Ratio “∆ωR”
• The ratio of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
2.2.5 Beta Forms “βx”
• A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
2.2.6 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.
2.2.7 Casimir Force “FPP”
• Attractive (non-gravitational) force between two parallel and neutrally charged mirrored
plates of equal area.
2.2.8 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”.
2.2.9 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.

93

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.10 Cosmological Constant
• A constant introduced into the equations of GR to facilitate a steady state Cosmological
solution.
• See: General Relativity.
2.2.11 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”.
2.2.12 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.
2.2.13 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.
2.2.14 Critical Frequency “ωC”
• The minimum frequency for the application of Maxwell's Equations within an
experimental context.
2.2.15 Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H”
• A representation of the Critical Ratio at ideal dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity utilising a unit amplitude spectrum.
2.2.16 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)”
2.2.17 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.
2.2.18 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.
2.2.19 Curl
• The limiting value of circulation per unit area.
2.2.20 DC-Offsets
• A proportional value of applied RMS Electric and / or Magnetic fields acting to offset
the applied function/s.
94

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.21 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.
2.2.22 Divergence
• The rate at which “density” exits a given region of space.
2.2.23 Dominant Bandwidth
• The bandwidth of the EGM spectrum which dominates gravitational effects.
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
2.2.24 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.
2.2.25 Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum
• A simple but extreme extension of the EM spectrum (including gravitational effects)
based upon a Fourier distribution.
2.2.26 Energy Density (General)
• Energy per unit volume.
2.2.27 Engineered Metric
• A metric tensor line element utilising the Engineered Refractive Index.
2.2.28 Engineered Refractive Index “KEGM”
• An EM based engineered representation of the Refractive Index.
2.2.29 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.
2.2.30 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.
2.2.31 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.
2.2.32 Fourier Spectrum
• Two spectra combined into one (an amplitude spectrum and a frequency spectrum)
obeying a Fourier Series.
• See: Amplitude Spectrum.
• See: Frequency Spectrum.
95

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.33 Frequency Bandwidth “∆ωPV”
• The bandwidth of the Fourier spectrum describing the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
2.2.34 Frequency Spectrum
• A family of wavefunction frequencies.
• The frequencies associated with an amplitude spectrum.
• See: Amplitude Spectrum.
2.2.35 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).
2.2.36 Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”
• The lowest frequency in the PV spectrum utilising Fourier harmonics.
2.2.37 General Modelling Equations (GMEx)
• Proportional solutions to the Poisson and Lagrange equations resulting in acceleration.
2.2.38 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.
2.2.39 General Similarity Equations (GSEx)
• Combines General Modelling Equations with the Critical Ratio by utilisation of the
Engineered Relationship Function.
• See: Critical Ratio “KR”.
2.2.40 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).
2.2.41 Graviton Mass-Energy Threshold “mγg”
• The upper boundary value of the mass-energy of a Graviton as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
2.2.42 Group Velocity
• The velocity with which energy propagates.
2.2.43 Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ”
• The terminating frequency of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).

96

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.44 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”.
2.2.45 Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ”
• The terminating mode of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
2.2.46 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).
2.2.47 Harmonic Inflection Frequency “ωX”
• The frequency associated with the harmonic inflection mode.
• See: Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”.
2.2.48 Harmonic Inflection Wavelength “λX”
• The wavelength associated with the harmonic inflection frequency.
2.2.49 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).
2.2.50 IFF
• If and only if.
2.2.51 Impedance Function
• A measure of the ratio of the permeability to the permittivity of a vacuum.
• Resistance to energy transfer through a vacuum.
2.2.52 Kinetic Spectrum
• Another term for the ZPF spectrum.
• See: ZPF Spectrum.
2.2.53 Mode Bandwidth
• The modes associated with a frequency bandwidth.
2.2.54 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.

97

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.55 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”.
2.2.56 Phenomena of Beats
• The interference between two waves of slightly different frequencies.
2.2.57 Photon Mass-Energy Threshold “mγ”
• The upper boundary value of the mass-energy of a Photon as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
2.2.58 Polarisable Vacuum (PV)
• The polarized 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.
2.2.59 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).
2.2.60 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).
2.2.61 Potential Spectrum
• Another term for the PV spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum.
2.2.62 Poynting Vector
• Describes the direction and magnitude of EM energy flow.
• The cross product of the Electric and Magnetic field.
2.2.63 Precipitations
• Results driven by the application of limits.
2.2.64 Primary Precipitant
• The frequency domain precipitation.
• See: Precipitations.

98

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.65 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).
2.2.66 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.
2.2.67 Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)
• See: 2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations.
2.2.68 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].
2.2.69 Refractive Index “KPV”
• Characterisation value of the PV.
2.2.70 Representation Error “RError”
• Error associated with the mathematical representation of a physical system.
2.2.71 RMS Charge Radii (General)
• The RMS charge radius refers to the RMS value of the charge distribution curve.
2.2.72 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.
2.2.73 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”.

99

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.74 Spectral Energy Density “ρ0(ω)”
• Energy density per frequency mode.
2.2.75 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.
2.2.76 Subordinate Bandwidth
• The EM spectrum.
• See: Dominant Bandwidth.
• See: Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
2.2.77 Unit Amplitude Spectrum
• A harmonic representation of unity (the number one) utilising the amplitude spectrum of
a Fourier distribution.
2.2.78 Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE)
• The lowest possible energy of the space-time manifold described in quantum terms.
2.2.79 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF)
• The field associated with ZPE.
2.2.80 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Spectrum
• The spectrum of amplitudes and frequencies associated with the ZPF.
2.2.81 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”.
2.2.82 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”
• The terminating frequency of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
2.2.83 Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) Beat Cut-Off Mode “nΩ ZPF”
• The terminating mode of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
2.2.84 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”.
2.2.85 2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)
• A time averaged simplification of the Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations.
2.2.86 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”.
100

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.2.87 3rd Sense Check “Stδ”
• A common sense test relating the harmonic cut-off mode across an elemental
displacement.
• See: Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ”.
2.2.88 4th Sense Check “Stε”
• A common sense test relating the representation error across an elemental displacement.
• See: Representation Error “RError”.
2.2.89 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”.
2.2.90 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”.
2.2.91 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

101

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

2.2.92 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”.
2.2.93 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

102

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.3

Quinta Essentia – Part 4

2.3.1 “Big-Bang”
• The moment of Cosmological creation.
• The explosion of space-time at the moment of Cosmological creation.
2.3.2 Black-Hole “BH”
• A massive gravitational body such that light cannot escape.
• See: Super-Massive-Black-Hole “SMBH”.
2.3.3 Broadband Propagation
• The propagation of the EGM wavefunctions in the PV spectrum, at a group velocity of zero.
2.3.4 Buoyancy Point
• The point of gravitational acceleration balance (neutrality) between the Earth and the Moon.
2.3.5 CMBR Temperature “T0”
• Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature.
• See: EGM-CMBR Temperature “TU”.
2.3.6 EGM-CMBR Temperature “TU”
• Derivation of the CMBR temperature by the EGM method.
• See: CMBR Temperature “T0”.
2.3.7 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.
2.3.8 EGM Hubble constant “HU”
• Derivation of the Hubble constant by the EGM method.
• See: Hubble Constant “H0”.
2.3.9


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”.

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

103

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.3.13 Hubble Constant “H0”
• A measure of the rate of Cosmological expansion.
• See: EGM Hubble constant “HU”.
2.3.14 Narrowband Propagation
• An approximation of Broadband characteristics.
• See: Broadband Propagation.
2.3.15


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

2.3.16


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

2.3.17 Primordial Universe
• The Universe prior to the “Big-Bang”.
• The Universe at the instant prior to the “Big-Bang”.
2.3.18 Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”
• A static Black-Hole.
• The simplest form of Black-Hole.
2.3.19 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”.
2.3.20 Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle
• Generalised reference to a SPBH.
2.3.21 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”.
2.3.22 Singularity Radius “rS”
• The radius of the singularity at the centre of a SBH.
• See: Schwarzschild-Black-Hole “SBH”.
2.3.23 Solar Mass
• The mass of the Sun.
104

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.3.24 Super-Massive-Black-Hole “SMBH”
• A BH of greater than “109” solar masses.
• See: Black-Hole “BH”.
2.3.25 Total Mass-Energy
• Refers to “visible + dark”.
2.3.26 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

105

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

106

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3 Glossary of Terms
3.1

Quinta Essentia – Part 3

3.1.1 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)
107

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

108

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.1.2 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
109

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)

110

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
111

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)
112

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

113

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
114

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

115

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.2

Quinta Essentia – Part 4

3.2.1 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
Electro-Dynamics
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

116

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.2.2 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
117

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
118

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
119

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

120

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.2.3 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
121

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
122

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
123

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

124

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4 Derivation Processes
4.1

Main sequence

4.1.1 Characterisation of the gravitational spectrum
The Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (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 gravitational acceleration “g” utilising the Polarisable Vacuum
(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,
1. Simplification of the EGM equations.
2. Derivation of gravitational acceleration in terms of “ωΩ”.
3. Formulation of a generalised cubic frequency expression in terms of “g”: “g → ωPV3”.
4. Determination of the gravitationally dominant EGM frequency: “SωΩ → c⋅Um”.
5. Derivation of EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”.
4.1.2 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,
6. Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle” mass and radius.
7. Derivation of the value of the “KPV” at the event horizon of a “Schwarzschild-PlanckBlack-Hole” (SPBH).
8. Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SPBH.
9. Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SBH.
10. Derivation of “rS”.
11. “nΩ” and “ωΩ” profiles (as “r → RBH”) of SBH’s.
12. Derivation of the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL”.
13. Derivation of the average emission frequency per Graviton “ωg”.
14. Why can't we observe BH’s?
4.1.3 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,
125

www.deltagroupengineering.com

15. Derivation of the primordial and present Hubble constants “Hα, HU”.
16. Derivation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature “TU”.
17. Numerical solutions for “Hα, AU, RU, ρU, MU, HU” and “TU”.
18. Determination of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on “HU” and “TU”.
19. “TU” as a function of a generalised Hubble constant “TU → TU2”.
20. Derivation of “Ro”, “MG”, “HU2” and “ρU2” from “TU2”.
21. Experimentally implicit derivation of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF”.
4.1.4 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 Universe33 is developed and compared to the Standard Model (SM) of Cosmology. 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,
22. Time dependent CMBR temperature “TU2 → TU3”.
23. Rates of change of CMBR temperature “TU3 → TU4 → d1,2,3TU4/dt1,2,3”.
24. Rates of change of the Hubble constant “d1,2H/dt1,2”.
25. Cosmological evolution process.
26. History of the Universe.
27. EGM Cosmological construct limitations.
28. Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools for gravitational astronomy?
4.1.5 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,
29. Gravitational propagation: the mechanism for interaction.
30. Gravitational interference: the mechanism of interaction.
4.1.6 Particle Cosmology
The following characteristics are derived utilising EGM principles:
31. The Photon and Graviton mass-energies lower limit.
32. The Photon and Graviton Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge radii lower limit.
33. The Photon charge threshold.
34. The Photon charge upper limit.
35. The Photon charge lower limit.

33

As defined by the EGM construct.
126

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4.2

The Hubble sequence

Note: refer to “Glossary of Terms” where required.
4.2.1 Preconditions
i. Derivation of EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”.
ii. Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle” mass and radius.
iii. Derivation of the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL”.
4.2.2 Assumptions
i. At an instant prior to the “Big-Bang”, the Universe (termed the “Primordial Universe”)
was analogous to a homogeneous Planck scale particle at the maximum permissible
energy density limit (i.e. with the physical proportions defined by precondition “ii”).
ii. The “Milky-Way” is analogous to a Planck scale particle of equivalent total Galactic
mass-energy (i.e. visible + dark) such that dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
exists between the “Primordial Universe” and the “Milky-Way” Planck scale particles34.
Hence, for Earth based observations, 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” at the instant of the “Big-Bang”.
iii. Matter is dispersed throughout the Universe in accordance with the EGM harmonic
representation of fundamental particles, i.e. Eq. (3.230) applies to Cosmology.
4.2.3 Simplified sequence
The Hubble constant by the EGM method “HU”, may be derived from first principles in
agreement with physical measurement, by the following sequence,
i. Express the EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles in Cosmological form.
ii. Formulate a relationship between the size of the Planck scale particles and EGM Flux
Intensity.
iii. Formulate a generalised relationship between the dimensions of a “Schwarzschild-PlanckParticle” and harmonic frequency mode.
iv. Formulate a generalised expression for “HU” utilising the output from the three previous
steps and evaluate appropriately,
NOTES

34

The analogous Planck scale particle for the “Milky-Way” performs the function of a “Galactic
Reference Particle” (GRP) in relation to the “Primordial Universe”.
127

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4.3

The CMBR temperature sequence

Note: refer to “Glossary of Terms” where required.
4.3.1 Preconditions
i. “HU” has been derived correctly.
ii. The total mass-energy of the present Universe is dynamically, kinematically and
geometrically similar to a particle at the Planck scale limit, consistent with the formulation
of “HU”.
4.3.2 Assumptions
i. EGM considers 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).
ii. The CMBR temperature is proportional to the average number of Gravitons radiated per
harmonic period by the “Primordial Universe” at the instant prior to the “Big-Bang”.
4.3.3 Simplified sequence
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature by the EGM method
“TU”, may be derived from first principles in precise agreement with physical measurement, by the
following sequence,
i. Formulate an expansive scaling factor relating the average number of Gravitons radiated
per harmonic period by the “Primordial Universe” at the instant prior to the “Big-Bang”,
the value of the Hubble constant at the same instant (termed the primordial Hubble
constant “Hα”) and “HU”.
ii. Formulate a thermodynamic scaling factor relating Wien’s Displacement Law and EGM
wavelength.
iii. Multiply the expansive and thermodynamic scaling factors to compute “TU”.
NOTES

128

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5 Characterisation of the Gravitational Spectrum

Abstract
The Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (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 gravitational acceleration “g” utilising the Polarisable Vacuum
(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”.

129

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.1

Simplification of the EGM equations

5.1.1 “Ω → Ω1”, “nΩ → nΩ_1” and “ωΩ → ωΩ_1”
Considering celestial objects as point masses radiating a spectrum of gravitational
wavefunctions, dominated by “ωΩ” in accordance with [5], the EGM Particle-Physics equations
applied to Cosmology produce signature characteristics of the gravitational spectrum resulting in
highly precise simplified representations (with negligible error) such that:
i. Ω(r,M) → Ω1(r,M)
ii. nΩ(r,M) → nΩ_1(r,M)
iii. ωΩ(r,M) → ωΩ_1(r,M)
Utilising Eq. (3.69, 3.70) yields,
3 .M .c
U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )

For solutions where “ 81.

U m( r , M )

3
4 .π .r

3 .M .c

5

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

(4.7)

2

U ω( r , M )
3

Ω 1( r , M )

2

108.

>> 768”: Eq. (3.72) → Eq. (4.8) [i.e. “Ω → Ω1”] as follows,
U m( r , M )

108.

U ω( r , M )

3

U m( r , M )

216.

U ω( r , M )

U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )

(4.8)

Substituting Eq. (4.7) into Eq. (4.8) yields,
Ω 1( r , M )

3

6 .c
r .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

.

3 .M .c

2

2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(4.9)

For solutions where “Ω(r,M) >> 1”: Eq. (3.71) → Eq. (4.10) by substitution of Eq. (4.9) [i.e.
“nΩ → nΩ_1”] as follows,
3

n Ω_1( r , M )

3

2
Ω 1( r , M ) 1 U m( r , M )
c
3 .M .c
.
.
12
2 U ω( r , M ) 2 .r .ω PV( 1 , r , M ) 2 .π .h .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(4.10)

Hence: Eq. (3.73) → Eq. (4.11) [i.e. “ωΩ → ωΩ_1”] as follows,
3

ω Ω_1( r , M ) n Ω_1( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )

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

(4.11)

5.1.2 Computing errors
ω Ω_1 R M , M M

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

1=

ω Ω_1 R NS , M NS
ω Ω R NS , M NS

130

.
6.66133810

14

.
2.22044610

14

.
6.66133810

14

.
8.88178410

14

(%)

(4.12)
1 = 0 (%)

(4.13)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.2

Derivation of gravitational acceleration in terms of “ωΩ”

5.2.1 Transformation: “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_2”
5.2.1.1 Simplification
The cubic form of Eq. (4.11) yields,
ω Ω_1( r , M )

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

3

(4.14)

For solutions where “KPV(r,M) = 1”, “ωPV(1,r,M)” may be usefully approximated and utilised such
that “ωΩ_19 → ωΩ_29” according to,
3

ω Ω_2( r , M )

9

9
2
1
c . 3 .M .c .
.
.
.
3
2r
2πh
ω PV( 1 , r , M )

3

9
2
c . 3 .M .c
2 .r
2 .π .h

.

3 14
2
3 .c .M

1
.
1 . 2 c .G.M
3
π .r
r

13 5 2 3
2 .r .π .h .G

(4.15)

Recognising,
th

G.h
c

λh

5

ωh

λh

(4.19)

2

c
G.h

mh

2

h .c
G

(4.17)

(4.18)

3

1

3

5

1
th

(4.16)

G.h
c

2

c
G.h

G
λh

(4.20)

c
2

3

h

(4.21)

Yields,
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

5
3
3 .ω h
.
. GM
13
5
π
2 .λ h .r

2

5
3
3 .ω h .G.M G.M
.
2 3
13
2 .λ h .π .r

2

r

6
3
3 .ω h
.
. GM
2
13 2
2 .π .r .c r

2

(4.22)

Let,
6
3
3 .ω h

St g

13 2
2 .π .c

(4.23)

G.M

g( r , M )

2

r

(4.24)

Hence,
ω Ω_2( r , M )

9

St g

.g ( r , M ) 2

r

(4.25)

Let “aEGM_ωΩ(r,M)” denote the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector such that:
a EGM_ωΩ( r , M )

131

r .
9
ω Ω_2( r , M )

St g

(4.26)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.2.1.2 Computing errors
5.2.1.2.1 “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_2”
The error associated with Eq. (4.25) in relation to the refractive inclusive simplified form of
harmonic cut-off frequency (i.e. “ωΩ_1”) may be articulated as follows,
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
ω Ω_1 R NS , M NS

1=

.
1.04678510

9

.
2.32001510

8

.
6.57443310

7

.
7.07196310

5

(%)

(4.27)
1 = 2.491576 ( % )

(4.28)

5.2.1.2.2 “g”
The error associated with Eq. (4.26) in relation to “g” may be articulated as follows,
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

a EGM_ωΩ R NS, M NS
g R NS, M NS

1=

.
1.49880110
.
1.5432110

12
12

.
1.49880110

12

.
1.57651710

12

(%)

(4.29)
.
1 = 1.65423210

12

( %)

(4.30)

5.2.1.3 Error analysis
The difference in error between Eq. (4.28, 4.30) indicates that the historical weak field
representation of “KPV” is limited in applicability to celestial objects with mass approximately less
than Neutron Stars. However, Eq. (4.30) demonstrates that the simplified EGM representation is not
effected by this constraint.
This is due to the manner in which “KPV” is defined. It has two definitions according to
“Puthoff et. Al.”: these are (i), it has a value of unity at infinity [i.e. Eq. (3.55)] and (ii), it has a
value of “KPV = c / vc” where, “c” is the velocity of light in a vacuum and “vc” denotes the velocity
of light in a vacuum affected by a gravitational field as perceived by an observer at infinity.
Since “c” is a definition and “vc” is measured, the application of the PV model of gravity in
terms of “KPV” is exact when the measurement is made from infinity: however, “g” is a local value.
Consequently, when comparing “g” to “aEGM_ωΩ”, the contribution of “KPV” must be either (iii),
removed from “aEGM_ωΩ” or (iv), merged with the classical representation of “g” for strong
gravitational fields when utilising the weak field approximation specified by Eq. (3.55).
Subsequently, two subtle yet important characteristics must be observed when comparing
the PV model of gravity to its classical equivalent: these are (v), “KPV” increases from unity at
infinity to the local observer and (vi) “g” decreases to zero at infinity from the local observer.

132

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.2.2 Transformation: “ωΩ_1 → ωΩ_3”
5.2.2.1 Simplification
Utilising Eq. (4.10, 4.11), an alternative expression for harmonic cut-off frequency may be
formulated as follows,
3

ω Ω_1( r , M )

3

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

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

.ω ( 1 , r , M )
PV

(4.31)

Taking the cubic form yields,
ω Ω_1( r , M )

3

3
1 . 2 .c . U m( r , M )
8 h ω PV( 1 , r , M )

(4.32)

For solutions where “KPV(r,M) = 1”, “ωPV(1,r,M)” may be usefully approximated and utilised such
that “ωΩ_19 → ωΩ_39” according to,
3 .M .c
ω Ω_3( r , M )

9

3
c . U m( r , M )
4 .h ω PV( 1 , r , M )

3

3

3

c
4 .h

2 3

. .3
. 4πr
2 .c .G.M

14

2

5

27 . c . M
8192 h 3 π2 .r5 .G

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

(4.33)

Hence,
9

ω Ω_3( r , M )

c.

3.

2

3 .ω h
4 .π .h

2

. M

2

5

r

(4.34)

Let,
St G

3.

3 .ω h

2

. c
2

4 .π .h

9

(4.35)

Therefore,
9

ω Ω_3( r , M )

2

M
St G.
5
r

(4.36)

where,
G

St G
St g

(4.37)

5.2.2.2 Computing errors
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 . St G
G

1=

.
1.11022310

13

. 13
1.11022310

.
1.11022310

13

(%)

(4.38)
.
1 = 6.66133810

.
1 = 3.33066910

St g

. 14
8.88178410

14

(%)

(4.39)
14

( %)

(4.40)
133

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.3

Formulation of a generalised cubic frequency expression in terms of “g”: “g → ωPV3”

Applying the methodology utilised to derive “ωΩ_2” and “ωΩ_3”, a generalised cubic
frequency expression in terms of gravitational acceleration at an arbitrary value of “nPV” may be
formulated directly from Eq. (3.67, 4.24). For solutions where “KPV(r,M) = 1”, “ωPV(nPV,r,M)3”
may be usefully approximated as follows,
2 .c .n PV

3

3

ω PV n PV, r , M

5.4

π .r

.g ( r , M )

2

(4.41)

Determination of the gravitationally dominant EGM frequency: “SωΩ → c⋅Um”

Storti et. Al. demonstrated in [5] that “>> 99.99(%)” of gravitational energy exists well
above the “THz” range at the surface of the Earth. Moreover, it was also shown in [5] that, in
accordance with DAT’s and BPT, the PV model of gravity may be usefully approximated by a
unique wavefunction at a specific frequency. This section advances these conclusions by
demonstrating that the gravitational spectrum of PV frequencies may be usefully approximated by a
single valued Poynting Vector wavefunction “SωΩ”.
Considering the harmonic element on the Right-Hand-Side (RHS) of Eq. (3.68) and
simplifying yields,
n PV

2

4

4

n PV

(RHS: 3.68)

Let “nPV = nΩ - 2”, “nPV > 0”:
nΩ

2

2

4

nΩ

2

substitute , n Ω

4

2

nΩ

2

8 .n Ω

simplify

24.n Ω

3

2

32.n Ω

16

(4.42)

For solutions where “nΩ >> 1”,
8 .n Ω

3

24.n Ω

8 .n Ω . n Ω

2

2

32.n Ω factor

3 .n Ω factor

8 .n Ω . n Ω

2
8 .n Ω . n Ω

2

3

3 .n Ω

4

(4.43)

→ 8 .n Ω 3

(4.44)

Hence, “Sω(r,M)”, in terms of “nΩ(r,M)”, is usefully approximated as “SωΩ(r,M)” according to:
S ωΩ ( r , M )

h .
4
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .
2
2 .c

n Ω ( r, M )

2

4

n Ω ( r, M )

4

h .
4
3
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .8 .n Ω ( r , M )
2
2 .c

(4.45)

Assuming “nΩ → nΩ_1” yields,
3

2
4 .h .
4
4
c
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

(4.46)

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

Therefore,

S ωΩ ( r , M ) c .U m( r , M )

(4.47)
(4.48)

This result demonstrates that “Sω(r,M)” for any solid spherical object with homogeneous
mass-energy distribution may be characterised by a single wavefunction at “ωΩ(r,M)”. In other
words, all other frequencies [i.e. for “ωPV(nPV,r,M) < ωΩ(r,M)”] within the PV spectrum of the
gravitational field generated by the object, may be usefully neglected.
134

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5.5

Derivation of EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”

5.5.1 Simplification
By considering each celestial object as a point mass / source radiating a high frequency
EGM wavefunction (i.e. in accordance with the conclusion stated in the preceding section), the
intensity of gravitational energy (EGM Flux expressed in Jansky's) may be derived as follows:
Let,
2 d
λ Ω ( r , M ) . U m( r , M )
dr

C Ω_J ( r , M )

(4.49)

Note: “CΩ_J” contains “KPV” because “λΩ → c / ωΩ”.
Assuming “λΩ → c / ωΩ_3” yields “CΩ_J → CΩ_J1” (i.e. the refractive exclusive form) as
follows,
2

C Ω_J1( r , M )

2

c
9

2

M
St G.
5
r

. .
. d 3M c
d r 4 .π .r3

2

c

2

5

9

. r

9

M

2

St G

2

1
2

5
. . 2 . 4
. 9 M c 9 c .St 9 . M
G
4
26
4 .π
4 .π .r
r

9

(4.50)

Let,
9 .c .
St G
4 .π
4

St J

2
9

(4.51)

Hence,
C Ω_J1( r , M )

St J
2

r

9

. M

5

8

r

(4.52)

5.5.2 Computing errors
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

( %)

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

1=

.
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

(4.53)

5.5.3 Error analysis
The preceding equation set indicates that for practical astronomical applications [i.e. “r >>
100(km)”],
i. “CΩ_J = CΩ_J1”.
ii. The historical definition of “KPV” [i.e. the weak field approximation shown in Eq. (3.55)]
does not significantly modify the value of “CΩ_J”.
135

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

136

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6 Derivation of “Planck-Particle” and “SchwarzschildBlack-Hole” Characteristics

Abstract
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).

137

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.1

Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle” mass and radius

6.1.1 What does “physical” mean?
6.1.1.1 Conceptualisation
The definition and conceptualisation of the term “physical” has been disputed and discussed
for millennia. It remains one of the greatest questions in philosophy, dating back to ancient Greek
civilization. A standard dictionary definition is “of or pertaining to that which is material”. To many
people, this is an adequate and useful definition. The next obvious task is to define what “material”
means. Of course, this process can be repeated indefinitely such that no universally acceptable
definition is ever reached.
Everyday life and experience is extremely forgiving in a “communication” sense. More
often than not, one is not required to articulate in unambiguous terms, the key elements in a chance
discussion. It is often sufficient, in many casual settings, to communicate thoughts and ideas in the
most generalised terms available as brief human encounters can be quite dynamic.
However, this luxury does not exist in the realm of Physics where precise definitions are vital
for clear communication and understanding. Fortunately, the EGM construct is able to provide a
useful mathematical definition facilitating the computation of common “Planck-Particle” and
“Schwarzschild-Black-Hole” (SBH) characteristics.
Storti. et. Al. demonstrated in [5] that by considering a solid spherical object with
homogeneous mass-energy distribution to be a point source spectral wavefunction radiator with
ZPF equilibrium radius “rZPF’, the following properties are mathematically observed,
i. As “|Um(rZPF,M)|” increases at any arbitrarily fixed value of radial displacement35 “r”:
i. “|nΩ(r,M)|” decreases.
ii. “|ωΩ(r,M)|” increases.
iii. “|ωPV(1,r,M)|” increases.
iv. “|ωΩ(r,M)| - |ωPV(1,r,M)|” decreases.
v. The PV spectrum is converging.
ii. For any arbitrarily fixed value of |Um(rZPF,M)|, as “r” increases:
i. “|nΩ(r,M)|” increases.
ii. “|ωΩ(r,M)|” decreases.
iii. “|ωPV(1,r,M)|” decreases.
iv. “|ωΩ(r,M)| - |ωPV(1,r,M)|” increases.
v. The PV spectrum is diverging.
6.1.1.2 Assumptions
A Cosmological physical limit exists for maximum permissible energy density such that
“|Um(rZPF,M)| → the physical limit”. Hence, a consistent interpretation of the results above within
the framework of contemporary Quantum Mechanical (QM) expectation provokes the following
hypotheses when “r > rZPF” such that “r → rZPF”:
i. “|nΩ(r,M)| → 1”.
ii. “|ωΩ(r,M)| → |ωPV(1,r,M)|”.
iii. “[|ωΩ(r,M)| - |ωPV(1,r,M)|] → 0”.
iv. The PV spectrum is convergent.

35

Where, “r > rZPF”.
138

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.1.1.3 Definitions
6.1.1.3.1 Matter
Based upon the preceding hypotheses, we are able to state an EGM definition of a specific
class of “physical matter” (i.e. spherical), in addition to contemporary interpretations. Matter with
spherical geometry and homogeneous mass-energy distribution is said to be “physical” if:
i. The magnitude of the energy density of the object at rest, bounded by the ZPF equilibrium
radius, is less than or equal to the Cosmological physical limit for maximum permissible
energy density (i.e. “|Um(rZPF,M)| ≤ the physical limit”).
ii. The number of harmonic frequency modes is greater than or equal to unity at the ZPF
equilibrium radius (i.e. “|nΩ(rZPF,M)| ≥ 1”).
6.1.1.3.2 Energy density
As specified in the proceeding construct, the limit for maximum permissible “physical
energy density” is defined as “|Um(λxλh,mxmh)|”.
Note: this condition implies a state of maximum permissible space-time manifold curvature.
6.1.1.3.3 Planck scale properties
The historical derivation and classical definitions of Planck Frequency “ωh”, Length “λh”
and Mass “mh” were not performed in accordance with formalised DAT’s. Alternatively, one could
argue that the classical definitions were derived correctly, but the experimental relationship function
“Kh”, associated with the formalised DAT derivation process of Planck scale properties, was
assumed to be unity [i.e. “Kh(ωh,λh,mh) = 1”].
Storti et. Al. derive experimentally implicit values of “ωh”, “λh” and “mh” in [13], based
upon the determination of three Experimental Relationship Functions (ERF’s) [i.e. “Kh(ωh) = Kω =
(2/π)1/3” and “Kh(λh) = Kλ = Kh(mh) = Km = (π/2)1/3”]. Hence, the experimentally implicit (also
termed “EGM adjusted”) values of Planck Frequency, Length and Mass are given by “Kω ωh”,
“Kλλh” and “Kmmh” respectively, such that when “h = 6.626069 x10-34(Js)”:
i. “Kωωh = 6.365769 x1042(Hz)”.
ii. “Kλλh = 4.709446 x10-35(m)”.
iii. “Kmmh = 6.341792 x10-8(kg)”.
A derivation of the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge diameter (i.e. the ZPF equilibrium
diameter) of a Photon “φγγ” (i.e. twice the RMS charge radius “rγγ”) is performed in [10]
demonstrating that “φγγ = 2rγγ ≈ λh” [to within 15.3(%)]. Subsequently, utilising the EGM adjusted
Planck Length, it may be demonstrated that “Kλλh = φγγ” to within “0.83(%)”. [13]
Since “φγγ” is extremely close to QM expectation and all EGM adjusted Planck properties
were derived in the same manner, it follows that the individual (not combined) “physical Planck
scale properties” of frequency “ω”, length “λ” and mass “m” may be defined as:
iv. “ω ≤ Kωωh”.
v. “λ ≥ Kλλh”.
vi. “m ≥ Kmmh”.
Note: in the proceeding construct,
vii. “λx > Kλ”.
viii. “mx > Km”.
139

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.1.2 What is a “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle”?
6.1.2.1 Conceptualisation
Contemporary Physics believes the maximum permissible energy density of a “Black-Hole”
(BH) is governed by classical Planck scale dimensions. Hence, a proportional representation of this
belief by an EGM based method is a natural evolutionary step. Subsequently, one would expect that
a SBH with “Planck-Particle” energy density represents the natural physical energy density limit
[i.e. “Um(λxλh,mxmh)”] as the number of harmonic frequency modes approaches unity [i.e.
“nΩ(λxλh,mxmh) = 1”].
For a SBH or “Planck-Particle” in a vacuum, one would intuitively expect that “KPV →
Undefined” at (or beyond) the event horizon, relative to a non-local observer without. However, if
we consider ourselves to be local observers within the event horizon, the space-time manifold is
maximally curved and no variation exists with respect to the PV model of gravity in terms of “KPV”,
from point to point.
Therefore, by logical induction, we shall assign a value of “KPV = 1” within the event
horizon of a SBH due to the dimensional consistency of the space-time manifold within being
analogous (only) to a totally flat space-time manifold without [i.e. “∆KPV(∆r) = 0”]. In other words,
one cannot geometrically curve the space-time manifold, within the event horizon, more than
“completely” (i.e. beyond the maximum permissible curvature limit).
Note: conceptualising a local observer within the event horizon negates potential modelling
difficulties of a non-local observer beyond the event horizon36.
6.1.2.2 Assumptions
In addition to the assumptions specified in the preceding section (i.e. serving as a
derivational base), we shall also apply the following,
i. Complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity exists, in accordance with DAT’s
and BPT principles, between a SBH and a mass-energy equivalent particle on the Planck
scale (i.e. a “Planck-Particle”).
ii. The relationship between a SBH and “Planck-Particle” may be described by the EGM
harmonic representation of fundamental particles [i.e. Eq. (3.230ii)].
iii. The energy density limit also denotes a condition of maximum permissible space-time
manifold curvature such that “KPV = 1” is a valid assignment within the even horizon of a
SBH.
6.1.2.3 Definition
A “Schwarzschild-Planck-Particle” is a SBH with “Planck-Particle” energy density
satisfying the condition “Stω(λxλh,mxmh) = 1” and “nΩ(λxλh,mxmh) = 1” such that the event horizon
“RBH” and ZPF equilibrium radii “rZPF” coincide at “λxλh”:
• i.e. “RBH = rZPF = λxλh”.
Note: a SBH with “Planck-Particle” energy density is also termed a “Schwarzschild-Planck-BlackHole” (SPBH).

36

Due to the historical definition of “KPV” being a weak field approximation only.
140

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.1.3 Construct
If we equate the energy density of a “Planck-Particle” of mass “mxmh” and radius “λxλh” to
a SBH, we may determine the minimum radius of a SBH with “Planck-Particle” energy density.
This is termed a “Schwarzschild-Planck-Black-Hole” and its minimum radius and mass may be
determined.
Taking the cubic form of Eq. (4.10) yields,
n Ω_1( r , M )

1 . U m( r , M ) 1 . 3 .M .c .
2 .c
8 U ω( r , M ) 8 4 .π .r3 h .ω ( 1 , r , M ) 4
PV
2

3

3

(4.54)

For solutions where “KPV(r,M) = 1”, “ωPV(1,r,M)” may be usefully approximated according to,
1 . 3 .M .c .
8 4 .π .r3 h .ω

2 .c

2

1 . 3 .M .c .
8 4 .π .r3

2 .c

2 .c

2

PV( 1 , r , M )

2

1 . 3 .M .c .
8 4 .π .r3

3
4

3
1 2 .c .G.M
h. .
r
π .r

1 . 3 .M .c .
8 4 .π .r3

3

3

2 .c

2

4

3
1 2 .c .G.M
h. .
r
π .r

4

(4.55)

3

3
1 2 .c .G.M . 2 .c .G.M
h. .
4
π .r
π .r
r

(4.56)

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

2 .c .G.M
π .r

(4.57)

Substituting Eq. (4.20) into Eq. (4.57) produces,
3 .c . r
n Ω_1( r , M )

3

Therefore, “nΩ_1 →

nΩ_19”

9

3

2 .c .G.M
π .r

(4.58)

2 3

λh

1. 4
8

8

λh

according to,
3 .c . r

n Ω_1( r , M )

1. 4

3

2

3

r . π .c . 3
.
16
2
2 GM λh
7

2 .c .G.M
π .r

2

3

7
r . π .m h . 3
16
2
2 M λh λh

3

(4.59)

Hence, let:
9

n Ω_2( r , M )

.
3
3 .π m h . r
16 M
λh
2

7

(4.60)

such that “nΩ_2 → nΩ_3” as “r → λxλh” and “M → mxmh” according to,
9

n Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

λ x.λ h
16

2

7

9

m
. π . h. 3
m x.m h λ h λ 2
h

141

3

7

9

3
3
3 .π . λ x 1 . 3 .π . λ x
16 m
2
x 2 mx 2

7

(4.61)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Assuming “nΩ_3(λxλh,mxmh) = 1” (i.e. for the maximum energy density condition), the value of
“mx” satisfying this limit may stated as,
3
3 .π . 7
λx
16
2

mx

(4.62)

The value of “λx” may be derived by application of the EGM harmonic representation of
fundamental particles [i.e. relating Eq. (4.62) to Eq. (3.230ii)]. Within the boundaries of
contemporary Physics, the dimensions of the smallest permissible SBH exist on the Planck scale.
Subsequently, if “r1 = RBH”, “M1 = MBH”, “r2 = λxλh” and “M2 = mxmh” then Eq. (3.230ii) may be
applied as follows,
λ x.λ h

5

m x.m h

2

2

M BH

.

5

R BH

2

2
c .R BH
2 .G

λ x.λ h

5

m x.m h

2

.

5

R BH

(4.63)

where, the radius to the event horizon “RBH” is related to mass “MBH” by,
2 .G .
M BH
2
c

R BH

(4.64)

Substituting Eq. (4.64) into Eq. (4.63) yields,
2

2
c .R BH
2 .G

λ x.λ h

5

m x.m h

2

.

5

R BH
5

2
1. λ x . c
4 R 3 G
BH

2

λh

.

5

5

1.

m x.m h
5

1.

. c
3 G

4 λ .λ
x h

2
λ x.λ h .c

λh

.

λh

.

5

m x.m h

. c
3 G

5

m x.m h

2

2 2

λx

4 λ .λ
x h

2

2 2

λx

5

2
1. λ x . c
4 R 3 G
BH

λh

.

(4.65)
5

m x.m h

2
λ x.λ h .c
2

2

2 .G.m x.m h

2

(4.66)

2

(4.67)

2

St ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

2 .G.m x.m h

9

(4.68)

Assuming ideal similarity between a SBH and a “Planck-Particle” satisfying
“Stω(λxλh,mxmh) = 1” at “nΩ_3(λxλh,mxmh) = 1”, the value of “λx” and “mx” may be determined as
follows,
Recognising that Eq. (4.69) may be substituted into Eq. (4.68) yields,
c

2

mh

G λh

(4.69)

2
λ x.λ h .c

1.λ x

2 .G.m x.m h 2 m x

1

(4.70)

such that:

142

www.deltagroupengineering.com

mx

λx
2

(4.71)

Substituting Eq. (4.71) into Eq. (4.62) yields,
λx

4 . 2
π 3

6

(4.72)

Evaluating produces,
λx

=

mx

2.698709
1.349354

(4.73)

λ x.λ h = 1.093333 10

10 .

.
m x.m h = 7.36147410

8

ym

(4.74)

( kg )

(4.75)
where, “ym = yoctometre = 10-24(m)”.
Mass and energy density characteristics of a SPBH may also be easily derived based upon
the preceding results according to,
V( r )

4. . 3
πr
3

(4.76)

where, “V” and “ρm” denote volume and mass-density respectively. Hence,
ρ m( r , M )

M
V( r )

(4.77i)

. 94 kg
ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.34467810
3
m

(4.78)

The ratio of the mass-density of a SPBH to the Sun is given by,
ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
ρ m R S, M S

.
= 9.55041510

90

(4.79)

Substituting Eq. (4.74, 4.75) into Eq. (3.70) produces the SPBH energy-density result,
. 87 ( YPa)
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.20853710

(4.80)

24

where, “YPa = yottaPascals = 10 (Pa)”.
6.1.4 Computing errors
The “1st” of two simple checks to ensure no algebraic errors were made in relation to the
baseline assumption that “Stω(λxλh,mxmh) = 1” at “nΩ_3(λxλh,mxmh) = 1”, is to substitute Eq. (4.71)
into Eq. (4.61) producing the result,
3
9

n Ω_3 λ x

π.
2

3.

λx

2

2

(4.81)

Comparing “nΩ_2” to “nΩ_3” confirms a lack of algebraic errors,
n Ω_2 λ x.λ h , m x.m h
n Ω_3 λ x

143

.
1 = 2.22044610

14

(%)

(4.82)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

The “2nd” check substitutes “mx = λx / 2” into Eq. (4.68). Upon simplification one concludes that
“Stω(λxλh,mxmh) = 1”, confirming a lack of algebraic errors.
6.1.5 Convergent and divergent spectra
Substituting various values into Eq. (4.81) yields a sequence demonstrating the preservation
of EGM characteristics and exhibiting PV spectral convergence / divergence behaviour as follows,
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 )

(4.83)

Therefore, for solutions where “KPV = 1” such that “nΩ → nΩ_3”, the following statements may be
articulated:
i.
Values of “nΩ(r,M) < 1” indicate a divergent PV spectrum where “ωΩ(r,M) < ωPV(1,r,M)”
and are non-physical.
ii.
Values of “nΩ(r,M) ≥ 1” indicate a convergent PV spectrum where “ωΩ(r,M) ≥ ωPV(1,r,M)”
and are physical.
6.1.6 Honourable mention
It should not escape attention that “mx” is very close to the square of the experimentally
implicit definition of EGM adjusted Planck mass ERF derived in [13] (see below). However, no
specific conclusion may be inferred from this result.
mx

1 = 0.14278 ( % )

2

Km

(4.84)

6.1.7 Concluding remarks
6.1.7.1 Characteristics of a physical SPBH
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

It has coinciding singularity and event horizon radii.
“r ≥ λxλh”, “M ≥ mxmh” and “mx = λx / 2”.
“ρm(r,M) ≤ ρm(λxλh,mxmh)”.
A value of “KPV = 1” is assigned within the event horizon (i.e. “r < λxλh”) due to maximum
permissible space-time manifold curvature [i.e. “∆KPV(∆r) = 0”].
v. For solutions where “KPV = 1”, only one harmonic mode exists [i.e. “nΩ(λxλh,mxmh) = 1”]
such that “ωPV(1,λxλh,mxmh) = ωΩ(λxλh,mxmh)” and the PV spectrum is convergent.

6.1.7.2 Characteristics of a non-physical “Planck-Particle”
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

It is not a SPBH.
“r < λxλh” such that “nΩ(r<λxλh) < 1”.
“ωΩ(r,M) < ωPV(1,r,M)”.
The PV spectrum is described as divergent.
144

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.1.7.3 Physicality of the EGM adjusted Planck Length
A derivation of the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge diameter is performed in [10]
demonstrating that “φγγ = 2rγγ ≈ λh”. Subsequently, utilising the EGM adjusted Planck Length, it
may be demonstrated that “Kλλh = φγγ” to within “0.83(%)” [13] according to,
K λ .λ h
2 .r γγ

1 = 0.82832 ( % )

(4.85)

Since “φγγ” is extremely close to QM expectation and all EGM adjusted Planck properties
were derived in the same manner, it follows that the individual (not combined) “physical Planck
scale properties” of frequency “ω”, length “λ” and mass “m” may be defined as:
i. “ω ≤ Kωωh”.
ii. “λ ≥ Kλλh”.
iii. “m ≥ Kmmh”.
NOTES

145

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.2

Derivation of the value of the “KPV” at the event horizon of a SPBH

6.2.1 Synopsis
It was stated previously that, for a SPBH in a vacuum, one would intuitively expect that
“KPV → Undefined” at (or beyond) the event horizon, relative to a non-local observer without. This
section demonstrates two independent methods for mathematically verifying this contention
utilising “λxλh” and “mxmh”. The “1st” method applies EGM principles; the “2nd” advances the work
of Depp et. Al as derived in [47].
6.2.2 Construct
6.2.2.1 1st Formulation
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

(4.86)

and utilising Eq. (4.69), 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

(4.87)

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

λx
2 .c .G. .m h
1 .
2
. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h
.
.
λxλh
π λ x.λ h

. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h

(4.88)

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

3

c . 1.
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h
λ x.λ h π
ωh

3

. 1. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h
λx π

ωh

(4.90)

3

. 1. K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h
λx π

ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h

(4.89)

(4.91)

Performing the appropriate 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
2 .c

4

(4.92)

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

146

4

(4.93)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

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

3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x

.K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h

2

4

h .ω h
3

4
4

3.

2 .π . π .c λ x

.K
.
.
PV λ x λ h , m x m h

2

(4.94)

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

2

(4.95)

Partially evaluating Eq. (4.95) numerically within a computational environment yields,
3
4
3
2 .π . π .c .λ x
.U λ .λ , m .m = 8
m x h x h
4
.
h ωh

Hence,

U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

(4.96)

8
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h

2

(4.97)

such that an expression for “KPV” may be formed according to,
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

(4.98)

Recognising that the EGM spectrum converges to a single mode for a SPBH and utilising
Eq. (3.71) yields,
n Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h
12

4
Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

1 1

(4.99)

where,
Ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

4. 3

(4.100)

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

(4.101)

By inspection, the only solution satisfying this equation is:
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h
U ω λ x.λ h , m x.m h

0

(4.102)

Verifying numerically yields,
3

108.0

2
12. 768 81.0 = 6.928203

4 . 3 = 6.928203

(4.103)
(4.104)

Therefore,
K PV λ x.λ h , m x.m h

147

2. 2
0

Undefined

(4.105)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.2.2.2 2nd Formulation
Let the expression for “KPV” (shown as “KDepp” below) derived by Depp et. Al. in [47],
satisfying the SBH condition be assigned the form,
1

K Depp ( r , M )

2 .G.M

1

r .c

2

(4.106)

such that:
K Depp ( r , M )

1
2 .G.M

2

1

r .c

r .c
r .c

2

2

2 .G.M

2

(4.107)

Performing a sample calculation at the surface of the Earth and comparing results utilising
Eq. (3.55, 4.107) produces,
K PV R E, M E = 1.00000000069601

(4.108)

K Depp R E, M E = 1.00000000069601

(4.109)

Hence, the relationship between the “Depp” and weak field exponential form is,
K PV( r , M )

K Depp ( r , M )

2

K Depp ( r , M )

K PV( r , M )

(4.110)

To ensure the preceding results were not coincidental due to weak field application, we shall
test Eq. (4.110) in the strong field as follows,
K PV( r , M )

1

2 .G.M
r .c

r .c

1

r .c

2

2

2

2 .G.M

(4.111)

Substituting Eq. (4.64) into Eq. (4.110) validates the relationship for a strong gravitational field and
yields the expected result,
K PV R BH, M BH

1

2 .G.M BH
2 .G .
2
M BH.c
2
c

1

1

Undefined

0

(4.112)

Substituting Eq. (4.69, 4.71) into Eq. (4.107) produces the “Depp” value for a SPBH as follows,
K Depp λ x.λ h , m x.m h

2

1

1
2 .G.m x.m h
2
λ x.λ h .c

1
1

2 .G.m x c2
.
1
2 G
.
λxc

1

1

2 .m x
λx

2.
1

1
λx 0

Undefined

2
λx

(4.113)

6.2.3 Concluding remarks
From the results obtained above, we have shown by derivation of identical values of
Refractive Index, that a “Planck-Particle” is dynamically, kinematically and geometrically
equivalent to a SBH. This may be mathematically stated as follows,
KPV(λxλh,mxmh) = KPV(RBH,MBH) = KDepp(λxλh,mxmh) = KDepp(RBH,MBH)
148

(4.114)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.3

Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SPBH

6.3.1 Synopsis
It was stated previously - for a SPBH in a vacuum, one would intuitively expect that “KPV
→ Undefined” (not infinity - an important distinction) at (or beyond) the event horizon, relative to a
non-local observer without. This section derives the value of “ωΩ” for a SPBH [i.e.
“ωΩ_3(λxλh,mxmh)”] relative to a local observer within the event horizon.
6.3.2 Assumptions
The value of “ωΩ_3(λxλh,mxmh)” may be determined by assuming the following (remaining
consistent with preceding sections),
i.
The space-time manifold is maximally curved and cannot be geometrically modified beyond
the maximum permissible limit.
ii.
A value of “KPV = 1” is assigned within the event horizon of a SPBH due to the dimensional
consistency of the space-time manifold within being analogous (only) to a totally flat spacetime manifold without [i.e. “∆KPV(∆r) = 0”].
6.3.3 Construct
Commencing with the utilisation of the “9th” power form of Eq. (4.36), we substitute “r =
λxλh” and “M = mxmh” producing,
2

M
St G.
5
r

St G.

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

λx

2

2

St G.

St G.

2

λ x.λ h

5

(4.115)
λx
2

St G.

.m
h

λ x.λ h

m x.m h

2

.m
h

λ x.λ h

5

(4.116)

2

St G m h
.
3
5
4 .λ x λ h

5

(4.117)

Substituting Eq. (4.35) into Eq. (4.117) yields,
2

St G m h
.
3
5
.
4λx λh
3
.

3
.

3

.

x

3

x

.

ωh

2

π .h

3

.

x

2

π .h

3
.

5
4
c .ω h
.
9

2

2

ωh

2

9 m
. c . h
2 λ 5
h

ω h .m h
π .h

3
.

3

x

.

2

9 m
. c . h
2 λ 5
h

ω h .m h

3

2

.

π .h

2
c .m h
.
h
λx

3

(4.118)
5
4
c .ω h
9

2
2

.

ωh

(4.119)

7

15 2
2 .π

(4.120)

Substituting Eq. (4.121) into Eq. (4.120) yields Eq. (4.122) as follows,
149

www.deltagroupengineering.com

m h .c

2

ωh

h
St G.

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

(4.121)
3

3

ωh

.

λx

9

15 2
2 .π

(4.122)

Utilising Eq. (4.36, 4.122) and simplifying yields,
9

St G.

9
3

3
λx
9

1.
2

.

m x.m h

2

λ x.λ h

5

ωh

9
3

3

9

λx
9

1.

15 2
2 .π 2

ωh

.

9

15 2
2 .π

(4.123)

3

3

. 1 .ω
h
λ x 26 .π2
9

3

(4.124)

3

1. 1 . 3
. 1 .ω

h
h
2
6
2 π2 4 .λ x
λ x 2 .π
3

9

3

1. 1 . 3

h
2 π2 4 .λ x

3

1
9

.
2

2. π

(4.125)

3 .
ωh

4 .λ x

(4.126)

Substituting Eq. (4.72) into the Left-Hand-Side (LHS) of Eq. (4.126) yields,
9

1. 1 .
2 π2

3

3
6

4. 4.

3

2

9

4

1. 3 . 6
4 25 π3

3
3 .π

(4.127)

Hence,
9

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

4

1. 3 . 6 .
ωh
4 25 π3

(4.128)

Displaying the numerical result for “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SPBH yields,
. 18 ( YHz)
ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h = 1.87219710

(4.129)

6.3.4 “ωPV(1,λxλh,mxmh)”
Substituting Eq. (4.81) into the basic EGM relational form “ωΩ(r,M) = nΩ(r,M)ωPV(1,r,M)”,
facilitates the derivation of “ωPV(1,λxλh,mxmh)” as follows,
ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h
n Ω_3 λ x

(4.130)

ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

(4.131)

Recognising that “nΩ_3(λx) = 1” yields,
ω PV 1 , λ x.λ h , m x.m h

150

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.3.5 Honourable mention
By inspection, “ωΩ_3(λxλh,mxmh) ≈ ¼ωh” utilising a definition of “h = 6.626069 x10-34(Js)”.
However, no specific conclusion may be inferred from the following result,
1.
. 18 ( YHz)
ω h = 1.84996810
4

(4.132)

Evaluating the approximation with respect to Eq. (4.129) demonstrates a small error according to,
ωh

1.

4 ω Ω_3 λ x.λ h , m x.m h

1 = 1.187319 ( % )

(4.133)

Additionally, it is noteworthy that “λx” may be represented in terms of the exponential
function “e” and the Fine Structure constant “α” (to high precision). However, no specific
conclusion may be inferred from the following results,
λx

e
1

e
1

α

α

(4.134)

= 2.698589

(4.135)

Checking the simplification error yields,
1 . e
λx 1 α

. 3 (%)
1 = 4.43474910

(4.136)

6.3.6 Concluding remarks
The preceding construct demonstrates that the value of “ωΩ” for a SPBH is “≈ ¼ωh”. This
“appears” consistent with the QM assertion of a physical frequency limit being “≈ ωh”. However, in
the proceeding construct, the QM expectation shall be challenged and shown to be ill-founded.
NOTES

151

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.4

Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SBH

6.4.1 Synopsis
The actual value of “KPV” is unimportant within the event horizon of a SBH. That is, an
observer without cannot see past the event horizon, so any value of “KPV” within, has no physical
meaning to an observer without. Therefore, we may assign any convenient value of “KPV” inside
the event horizon, provided it is done consistently.
6.4.2 Assumptions
At the event horizon of a SBH, “KPV(RBH,MBH) = Undefined” (not infinity - an important
distinction) relative to a non-local observer without. Subsequently, for an observer within the event
horizon of a SBH, we shall assume:
i.
A physical singularity of radius “rS” exists at the centre of a SBH.
ii.
“KPV” is constant [i.e. “∆KPV(∆r) = 0”] from the singularity radius “rS” to the event
horizon “RBH” [i.e. “KPV(rS≤r≤RBH,MBH) = 1”]. This feature is beyond the determination
of an observer without.
6.4.3 Construct
Utilising Eq. (4.36, 4.64), we may derive the value of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SBH
[i.e. “ωΩ_4(MBH)” at “RBH”] as follows,
9

ω Ω_4 M BH

2

St G.

2 .G.M BH
c

c .St G

9

M BH

c.
5

5
3
( 2 .G) .M BH

2

(4.137)

Let,
9

St BH

c.

c .St G
5
( 2 .G)

(4.138)

Hence,
3

ω Ω_4 M BH

St BH.

1
M BH

(4.139)

6.4.4 Sample calculations
Performing sample calculations for a SPBH (i.e. “MBH = mxmh”), a SBH at one solar mass,
“105” and “1010” solar masses (i.e. “MBH = MS, 105MS, 1010MS” respectively) yields,
ω Ω_4 m x.m h

. 18
1.87219710

ω Ω_4 M S
5
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

=

. 5
6.23977510

( YHz)

. 4
1.34431910

10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

289.624693

(4.140)

6.4.5 Concluding remarks
Since “ωΩ_4(mxmh) = ωΩ_3(λxλh,mxmh)”, no errors have been generated in the formulation of
“ωΩ_4(MBH)”. A clear mathematical pattern is articulated demonstrating that “ωΩ_4” increases with
energy density (i.e. to “RBH”) and decreases with “MBH”.
152

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Note: the decrease in “ωΩ_4” arises from the increase in “RBH” because:
i. The physical geometry of a SBH utilised to determine energy density is defined by “RBH”.
The larger it becomes due to an “MBH” increase, the lower the value of the energy density
and “ωΩ_4”.
ii. Matter is considered to be a point source wavefunction radiator under the EGM construct.
As the wavefunction propagates, its frequency decays. Since the event horizon is farther
away from the singularity (i.e. the point source) for increasing “MBH”, “ωΩ_4” decreases.
NOTES

153

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.5

Derivation of “rS”

6.5.1 Synopsis
A physical “Planck-Particle” is considered to represent the condition of maximum
permissible energy density in the Universe. If a SBH is a real manifestation of a physical “PlanckParticle”, then it follows that the maximum permissible mass-density of the singularity at the centre
of a BH is equal to the mass-density of a physical “Planck-Particle” (i.e. a SPBH).
6.5.2 Assumptions
Utilising key features defined in preceding sections, we shall assume that, for an observer
within the event horizon of a SBH:
i. A physical singularity of mass-density “ρm(rS,MBH)” exists at the centre of a SBH.
ii. The physical singularity at the centre is a SPBH [i.e. “ρm(rS,MBH) = ρm(λxλh,mxmh)”].
iii. “KPV” is constant [i.e. “∆KPV(∆r) = 0”] from the singularity radius “rS” to the event
horizon “RBH” [i.e. “KPV(rS≤r≤RBH,MBH) = 1”]. This feature is beyond the determination
of an observer without.
6.5.3 Construct
6.5.3.1 1st Formulation
“rS” may be derived utilising Eq. (4.77i) according to,
ρ m( r , M )

3 .M
3
4 .π .r

(4.77ii)

Substituting “Planck-Particle” characteristics yields,

ρ m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

3.

3 .m x.m h
4 .π . λ x.λ h

λx
2

3

.m
h

3 .m h
3

4 .π . λ x.λ h

2
3
8 .π .λ x .λ h

(4.141)

Let the mass-density of the singularity at the core of a SBH be defined by,
3 .M BH

ρ m r S , M BH

4 .π .r S

3

(4.142)

If “ρm(rS,MBH) = ρm(λxλh,mxmh)” then,
M BH
3

rS

mh
2
3
2 .λ x .λ h

(4.143)

Substituting “ωh2 = (c/λh)2” and “c2/G = mh/λh” into the above yields,
M BH
3

rS

ωh

2
2

2 .G.λ x

(4.144)

such that:

154

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3

r S M BH

2
2 .G.λ x

ωh

2

3

. . 2.
.M
BH λ h 2 λ x

M BH
mh

(4.145)

Recognising that “RBH(MBH) = 2GMBH/c2” yields,
3

r S R BH

2
λ x.λ h .R BH

(4.146)

Noting that,
3

r S λ x.λ h

2
λ x.λ h . λ x.λ h

λ x.λ h

(4.147)

6.5.3.2 2nd Formulation
Since the singularity mass-density “ρS” is constant, we may express the construct in an
alternative form by specifying “ρS = ρm(λxλh,mxmh)” as follows,
3

r S M BH

3 .M BH
4 .π .ρ S

(4.148)

Hence,
3.

2
c .R BH
2 .G

3
4 .π .r S

ρS

3

r S R BH

2
3 .c .R BH
3
8 .π .G.r S

(4.149)

2
3 .c .R BH
8 .π .G.ρ S

(4.150)

6.5.3.3 3rd Formulation
An expression for “MBH” as a function of “rS” may be formulated utilising “V(r) = (4/3)πr3”
as follows,
4. .
3
π ρ S .r S
3

M BH r S

(4.151)

6.5.4 Sample calculations
Performing sample calculations of “rS” expressing “MBH” in terms of proportional solar
mass yields,
rS MS
5.

r S 10 M S

.
3.28046310
=

10
r S 10 .M S

0.015227

4

( am)

0.706754

(4.152)

155

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Similarly, performing sample calculations of the BH to solar mass ratio “MBH/MS” as a function of
“rS” such that it resides on the fundamental particle scale (see: [12,17]) yields,
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
1 . M
BH r uq
MS
M BH r bq

M BH r en

M BH r µn

M BH r τn

. 13 2.45782610
. 7
5.19529810

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 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 )

. 10
2.3560510

. 9 2.12850410
. 11
7.96867110

0

0

0

(4.153)

Note:
i. Disregard “1(kg)” from the above: this was required and included merely to define the
matrix for evaluation in the “MathCad” computational environment.
ii. “rS” of a “Super-Massive-Black-Hole” (SMBH) [i.e. “1010” solar masses] approaches
the dimensions of a Quark or Boson.
Calculating the total mass of the Universe has been attempted many times by the Physics
community, with no definitive success. We shall perform some qualitative comparisons utilising
“rS”. The following results represent various speculative total mass values of the Universe if it were
condensed to an “rS” value equal to some well known particles.
M BH r ε

. 43
9.27104510

M BH r π

. 49
3.22881910

M BH r e

=

. 51
1.26038310

( kg )

. 63
8.34661610

M BH r Bohr

(4.154)

6.5.5 Honourable mention
It should not escape attention that when “rS ≈ rε”, “RBH” approximately equals the size of the
observable Universe according to,
RBH(MBH(rε)) ≈ 14.56(GLyr)

(4.155)

6.5.6 Concluding remarks
The derivation of “rS” has lead to the development of some very useful relationships and
characteristics. Six significant results may be emphasised from this section, these are:
i. The SPBH and SBH singularity energy densities are equal:
U m λ x.λ h , m x.m h

U m r S M BH , M BH

(4.156)

ii. The singularity at the centre of every SBH exists at the energy density limit.
iii. A key difference between a SPBH and a SBH singularity is the location of the event
horizon. For a SPBH, “rS” and “RBH” coincide: for a SBH, they do not.
iv. By observational inference regarding the mass limit of SMBH’s (i.e. approximately “1010”
solar masses), the preceding results suggest that the physical dimensions of a “Quark or
Boson” might be some sort of natural singularity size limit.
v. If the preceding point is correct, it may be possible to discount “Bosons” by recognising
them to be force carriers. Subsequently, it may (?) be reasonable to conjecture that the
dimensions of a SMBH singularity is generalised by the physical “Quark” range according
to “1.28 x1010MS < MBH(rS) < 3.69 x1010MS”.
vi. A philosophical question arises: “is a Quark actually a SMBH from another Universe”?
156

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.6

“nΩ” and “ωΩ” profiles (as “r → RBH”) of SBH’s

6.6.1 “nΩ”
6.6.1.1 Synopsis
This section derives the “nΩ” profile (i.e. as “r → RBH”) of any SBH. It is numerically
demonstrated (explicitly in terms of “MBH”) and graphically illustrated (in terms of radial
displacement) that the profile remains consistent with conclusions defined in [5] such that:
i. “nΩ_2” increases as “r → RBH” [see: Eq. (4.157, 4.158), Fig. (4.18)].
ii. “nΩ_4,5” increases with rising “MBH” [see: Eq. (4.160)].
6.6.1.2 Assumptions
Utilising key features defined in preceding sections, we shall assume that, for an observer
within the event horizon of a SBH:
i. The singularity of mass-density “ρm(rS,MBH)” at the centre of a SBH exists at the physical
limit such that: “ρm(rS,MBH) = ρm(λxλh,mxmh)”.
ii. “KPV” is constant [i.e. “∆KPV(∆r) = 0”] from the singularity radius “rS” to the event
horizon “RBH” [i.e. “KPV(rS≤r≤RBH,MBH) = 1”]. This feature is beyond the determination
of an observer without.
iii. “nΩ(rS≠λxλh,MBH≠mxmh) > 1” where “nΩ → nΩ_2”.
6.6.1.3 Construct
The “nΩ” profile for SBH’s (i.e. as “r → RBH”) may be determined trivially in a
computational environment utilising “nΩ_2”. However, for subsequent use within this text, it is more
convenient to define a new form explicitly in terms of “MBH” as follows,
Let “nΩ” at the periphery of a SBH singularity be given by “nΩ_4” according to,
n Ω_2 r S M BH , M BH

n Ω_4 M BH

(4.157)

Let “nΩ” at the event horizon of a SBH be given by “nΩ_5” according to,
n Ω_2 R BH M BH , M BH

n Ω_5 M BH

(4.158)

Let the event horizon to singularity cut-off mode ratio be given by “nBH” according to,
n BH M BH

n Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

(4.159)

6.6.1.4 Sample calculations
Evaluating Eq. (4.157 – 4.159) utilising arbitrary values produces the following illustrational
results explicitly in terms of “MBH”,
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

157

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

(4.160)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.6.1.5 Sample plots (log vs. log)
The increase in “nΩ” (as a function of radial displacement “Rbh” and mass “MBH”) over the
range “rS(MS) ≤ Rbh ≤ RBH(MS)” may be graphically illustrated according to,
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
n Ω _2 R bh , 10

10 .
MS
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)

Figure 4.18 (log vs. log),
Note: “nΩ_2(RBH,mxmh)” has been omitted due to plotting limitations.
6.6.2 “ωΩ”
6.6.2.1 Synopsis
This section derives the “ωΩ” profile (i.e. as “r → RBH”) of any SBH. It is numerically
demonstrated (explicitly in terms of “MBH”) and graphically illustrated (in terms of radial
displacement) that the profile remains consistent with conclusions defined in [5] such that:
i. “ωΩ_3” decreases as “r → RBH” [see: Fig. (4.19)].
ii. “ωΩ_4” decreases with rising “MBH” [see: Eq. (4.165)].
iii. “ωΩ_5” increases with rising “MBH” [see: Eq. (4.163, 4.165)].
6.6.2.2 Assumptions
Utilising key features defined in preceding sections, we shall assume that, for an observer
within the event horizon of a SBH:
i. The singularity of mass-density “ρm(rS,MBH)” at the centre of a SBH exists at the physical
limit such that: “ρm(rS,MBH) = ρm(λxλh,mxmh)”.
ii. “KPV” is constant [i.e. “∆KPV(∆r) = 0”] from the singularity radius “rS” to the event
horizon “RBH” [i.e. “KPV(rS≤r≤RBH,MBH) = 1”]. This feature is beyond the determination
of an observer without.
iii. “ωh” is not a physical limit.
158

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.6.2.3 Construct
The “ωΩ” profile for SBH’s (i.e. as “r → RBH”) may be determined trivially in a
computational environment utilising “ωΩ_3”. However, for subsequent use within this text, it is
more convenient to define a new form explicitly in terms of “MBH” as follows,
Let “ωΩ” at the periphery of a SBH singularity be given by “ωΩ_5” according to,
ω Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_3 r S M BH , M BH

(4.161)

Let the singularity to event horizon cut-off frequency ratio be given by “ωBH” according to,
ω BH M BH

ω Ω_5 M BH
ω Ω_4 M BH

(4.162)

6.6.2.4 Sample calculations
Evaluating Eq. (4.161, 4.162) utilising arbitrary values produces the following results
explicitly in terms of “MBH”,
ω Ω_5 m x.m h

. 18
1.87219710

ω Ω_5 M S

. 19
4.55727410

=

5
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

. 19
6.9805610
. 20
1.06924110

10
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

ω BH m x.m h

(4.163)

1

ω BH M S
5
ω BH 10 .M S

( YHz)

=

. 13
7.30358710
. 15
5.19263810
. 17
3.69181510

10
ω BH 10 .M S

(4.164)

Hence, the proportional relationship between “ωh” and “ωΩ_4,5” may be trivially
approximated as follows,
ω Ω_5 m x.m h

ω Ω_4 m x.m h

ω Ω_5 M S
1 .
5
ω h ω Ω_5 10 .M S

5
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_5 10 .M S

10
ω Ω_4 10 .M S

0.253004

ω Ω_4 M S
=

0.253004

.
6.158585 8.43227510

14

.
9.433354 1.81667910

15

14.44945

0

(4.165)

The preceding results may be indicative of a natural physical frequency boundary based upon an
observational mass limit of SMBH’s.
If we conjecture that “ωBH” has harmonic foundations, in accordance with the broader EGM
construct for the harmonic representation of fundamental particles, then a set of simultaneous
equations may be formulated such that a precise observational mass limit for SMBH’s may be
predicted.
For example, if we assume that “ωBH = 15” (i.e. an integer value), a precise prediction for
the SMBH limit may be calculated. If this result matches the observational limit, then a natural
physical frequency limit is implied such that a harmonic relationship exists between “rS” and “RBH”.
Of course, this is pure conjecture and no emphatic conclusion may be inferred.
159

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.6.2.5 Sample plots (log vs. log)
The decrease in “ωΩ” (as a function of radial displacement “Rbh” and mass “MBH”) over
the range “rS(MS) ≤ Rbh ≤ RBH(MS)” may be graphically illustrated according to,
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)

Figure 4.19 (log vs. log),
Note: Eq. (4.140, 4.163) indicate that “ωΩ(rS,mxmh) = ωΩ(RBH,mxmh)”. However, the preceding
graph illustrates that, over the radial displacement range specified, “ωΩ” is not constant for a
SPBH. This is due to “Rbh > [rS(mxmh) = RBH(mxmh) = λxλh]” (i.e. “ωΩ” decreases beyond the
event horizon).
6.6.3 “ωPV(1,r,MBH)”
6.6.3.1 Synopsis
This section derives the value of “ωPV(1,r,MBH)” at “rS” and “RBH” of any SBH (i.e.
“ωΩ_6,7”). It is numerically demonstrated (explicitly in terms of “MBH”) that results remain
consistent with conclusions defined in [5] such that:
i. “ωPV(1,r,MBH)” decreases as “r → RBH” [see: Fig. (4.20)].
ii. “ωPV[1,r(MBH),MBH]” decreases with rising “MBH” [see: Eq. (4.166 - 4.169)].
6.6.3.2 Assumptions
Refer to preceding sections.

160

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.6.3.3 Construct
The value of “ωPV(1,r,MBH)” at “rS” and “RBH” for SBH’s may be determined trivially in a
computational environment utilising “ωΩ_4,5” and “nΩ_4,5”. However, for subsequent use within this
text, it is more convenient to define new forms explicitly in terms of “MBH” as follows,
Note: the following symbols for the fundamental harmonic frequencies of a SBH have been adopted
to emphasise that “ωPV(1,r,M) = ωΩ(r,M)” for a SPBH (i.e. when “r = λxλh”, “M = mxmh”).
Let “ωPV[1,rS(MBH),MBH]” at the periphery of a SBH singularity be given by “ωΩ_6” according to,
ω Ω_6 M BH

ω Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

(4.166)

Let “ωPV[1,RBH(MBH),MBH]” at the event horizon of a SBH be given by “ωΩ_7” according to,
ω Ω_7 M BH

ω Ω_4 M BH
n Ω_5 M BH

(4.167)

Let the singularity to event horizon fundamental frequency ratio be given by “ωPV_1” according to,
ω Ω_6 M BH

ω PV_1 M BH

ω Ω_7 M BH

(4.168)

6.6.3.4 Sample calculations
Evaluating Eq. (4.166 - 4.168) utilising arbitrary values produces the following
approximated results explicitly in terms of “MBH”,
ω Ω_6 m x.m h

ω Ω_7 m x.m h

ω Ω_6 M S

ω Ω_7 M S

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

. 42 1.87219710
. 42
1.87219710
=

. 38 6.93112610
. 4
1.29804810
. 37
3.61189510

. 37 6.93112610
.
1.00503110

ω PV_1 m x.m h

( Hz)

0.693113
6

(4.169)

1

ω PV_1 M S
5
ω PV_1 10 .M S

=

10
ω PV_1 10 .M S

. 33
1.8727810
. 37
5.21112310
. 42
1.45002610

(4.170)

The preceding results indicate that the PV spectral bandwidth expands as the radial displacement
from the singularity increases (i.e. “r → ∞”).
6.6.3.5 Sample plots (log vs. log)
The decrease in “ωPV(1,r,MBH)” (as a function of radial displacement “Rbh” and mass
“MBH”)37 over the range “rS(MS) ≤ Rbh ≤ RBH(MS)” may be graphically illustrated according to,

37

Shown in the proceeding graph as the ratio “ωΩ_3(Rbh,MBH) / nΩ_2(Rbh,MBH)”.
161

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Fundamental Freq. vs Radial Disp.
rS MS

R BH M S

ω Ω _3 R bh , m x .m h
n Ω _2 R bh , m x .m h

Fundamental Frequency

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
10
ω Ω _3 R bh , 10 .M S
n Ω _2 R bh , 10

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)

Figure 4.20,
6.6.3.6 Honourable mention
It should not escape attention that the dimensionless ratio shown below approaches an
integer value. However, no specific conclusion may be inferred from the following result,
1

.

ωh

10
ω PV_1 10 .M S ( Hz)

= 5.103269

(4.171)

6.6.4 Concluding remarks
The key determinations are:
i. “nΩ_2” increases as “r → RBH”.
ii. “nΩ_4,5” increases with rising “MBH”.
iv. “ωΩ_3” decreases as “r → RBH”.
v. “ωΩ_4” decreases with rising “MBH”.
vi. “ωΩ_5” increases with rising “MBH”.
vii. “ωPV(1,r,MBH)” decreases as “r → RBH”.
viii. “ωPV[1,r(MBH),MBH]” decreases with rising “MBH”.
ix. “ωPV[1,r(Rbh),MBH]” increases with rising “MBH” [Rbh ≠ f(MBH)].
x. The PV spectral bandwidth expands as the radial displacement from the singularity
increases (i.e. “r → ∞”).
xi. It is conjectured that a natural physical frequency limit may exist such that it
influences the SMBH observational limit.

162

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.7

Derivation of the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL”

6.7.1 Synopsis
6.7.1.1 Fundamentals
EGM assumes that the spectral energy of the polarized ZPF surrounding an object (i.e. the
PV spectrum / gravitational field) is equal to the mass-energy of the object itself, which may be
characterised by a population of coherent conjugate wavefunction Photon pairs at “ωΩ”. The massenergy equivalence relationship is given by Einstein’s famous equation,
E( M )

M .c

2

(4.172)

To derive the minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL”, we require a reference particle
(i.e. a starting point) for the derivation process. For simplicity and clarity, we shall utilise the SPBH
as our reference particle from which to build a construct. The primary reason for this selection is
because “rS” coincides with “RBH” which negates any potential “singularity or event horizon”
arguments the investigator (i.e. us / the reader) might have.
The propagation energy of a single Photon is given by “Eγ(ω)”,
E γ( ω )

h .ω

(4.173)

Consequently, the energy of a coupled Photon pair (i.e. a Graviton as defined by EGM) should
equal “2Eγ(ω)”. A simple mathematical proof of this may be demonstrated as follows: let the
relationship between the propagation energy of a Graviton (i.e. a conjugate Photon pair) be,
E g ( ω ) E x.E γ ( ω )

(4.174)

where, “Eg(ω)” denotes the Propagation energy of a Graviton and “Ex” represents the proportional
relationship to the propagation energy of a Photon. Moreover, let the population of Gravitons (i.e. a
population of coherent conjugate Photon pairs) being radiated per period be given by “TΩ_4”
according to,
T Ω_4 M BH

1
ω Ω_4 M BH

(4.175)

Hence, the average number of Photons radiated by a SBH, each with propagation energy
“Eγ(ω)”, is given by “nγ” according to,
n γ ω , M BH

E M BH
E γ( ω )

(4.176)

Subsequently, the number of Gravitons is given by “ng” according to,
n g ω , M BH

E M BH
E g( ω )

(4.177)

However, recognising that a single Graviton is a conjugate Photon pair (i.e. by the EGM
definition given) according to,
n g ω , M BH

1.
n γ ω , M BH
2

(4.178)

It follows that,
1.
n γ ω , M BH
2

163

E M BH
E g( ω )

(4.179)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

Substituting “Eg(ω) = ExEγ(ω)” yields,
1.
n γ ω , M BH
2

Hence,
Ex

E M BH
E x.E γ ( ω )

(4.180)

2 .E M BH
2
n γ ω , M BH .E γ ( ω )

E g( ω )

(4.181)

2 .E γ ( ω )

(4.182)

6.7.1.2 Assumptions
To apply the preceding equations, we are required to specifically assign a mechanism
facilitating the existence of gravitational fields. EGM considers all matter to be wavefunction
radiators of populations of coherent conjugate Photon pairs such that each pair constitutes a
Graviton38. Hence, to evaluate the preceding equations we shall assume the following key
mathematical modelling criteria for an object at rest,
i. Gravitons reside within, until they are spontaneously ejected and the supply has been
exhausted. Hence, existing gravitational (PV) field strengths are sustained in this manner.
ii. Only whole Gravitons are ejected.
iii. The physical reality of the mathematical modelling processes utilised, or theories of
Graviton absorption by the object itself from external sources - at this stage, are irrelevant.
The true measure will be the complete and accurate derivation of the Hubble constant and
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature later in this text.
6.7.1.3 Sample calculations
Considering a SPBH (i.e. “MBH = mxmh”) yields a value of mass-energy equivalence and
Photon-Graviton “emission / absorption” period as follows,
E m x.m h = 6.616163 ( GJ)

(4.183)

T Ω_4 m x.m h = 5.341319 10

43 .

s

(4.184)

The energy radiated per “TΩ_4” (i.e. per Photon or Graviton) is given by “Eγ(ω)” and “Eg(ω)”
respectively according to,
E γ ω Ω_4 m x.m h

= 1.240531 ( GJ)

E g ω Ω_4 m x.m h

= 2.481061 ( GJ)

(4.185)
(4.186)

Hence, the average number of Photons and Gravitons radiated per “TΩ_4” is evaluated to be,
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

=

5.333333
2.666667

(4.187)

38

In a manner of speaking, the typical PV spectrum contains many different Graviton massenergies dependent upon one’s definition of how many Photons constitute “a specific kind / type”
of Graviton. However, the EGM definition is applied throughout this construct.
164

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.7.2 Construct
6.7.2.1 Reconciliation
6.7.2.1.1 Dilemma

How does one reconcile Eq. (4.187) against the “2nd” assumption?

6.7.2.1.2 Resolution
6.7.2.1.2.1 Uncertainty
The preceding results suggest that the Graviton burst per period varies slightly around the
average value. Subsequently, over “3” periods, the total number of Gravitons radiated equals “8”.
This may be explained a numbers of ways. For example, in the case of a SPBH (conserving
coherent population characteristics), Graviton emission profiles could (?) appear as follows,
i. “3” Gravitons in the “1st” period + “3” Gravitons in the “2nd” period + “2” Gravitons in the
“3rd” period = 3 + 3 + 2 = 8, with an average being = “8/3” = “2.6667” =
“ng(ωΩ_4(mxmh),mxmh)”.
ii. “2” Gravitons in the “1st” period + “2” Gravitons in the “2nd” period + “4” Gravitons in the
“3rd” period = 2 + 2 + 4 = 8 etc.
iii. “1” Graviton in the “1st” period + “1” Graviton in the “2nd” period + “6” Gravitons in the
“3rd” period = 1 + 1 + 6 = 8 etc.
iv. “0” Gravitons in the “1st” period + “0” Gravitons in the “2nd” period + “8” Gravitons in the
“3rd” period = 0 + 0 + 8 = 8 etc.
Note: the potential emission profiles above re-enforce the uncertainty principle.
6.7.2.1.2.2 Quasi-Uncertainty
An alternative possibility is that the sum of the Gravitons radiated over any “3” consecutive
periods equals “8” (commencing the count from an arbitrary period position in the emission train),
in which case an emission profile could (?) be “3 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 2 + ….”. Hence,
moving from left to right across the emission train yields,
i. 3 + 3 + 2 = 8
ii. 3 + 2 + 3 = 8
iii. 2 + 3 + 3 = 8 etc.
Therefore, our initial assumption regarding coherent integer Graviton population ejections has
been reconciled against “ng” by the existence of a number of different possible emission trains and
temporal profiles.
6.7.2.2 “TL”
6.7.2.2.1 Fundamentals
The generalised form has been avoided thus far because it did not adequately expose the
dilemma surrounding “emission / absorption” trains. For example, if one applies a value of “MBH”
other than “mxmh”, one obtains relatively large values of Graviton “emission / absorption” numbers.
Hence, the presence of uncertainty principles in the EGM construct may not have been readily
apparent.
165

www.deltagroupengineering.com

However, because the possibility of “emission / absorption” trains has been introduced, we
may now determine the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter in generalised form by
considering the mass-energies of a Photon “mγγ” and Graviton “mgg” at rest by the EGM method
defined in [10],
m γγ
m gg

3.195095

=

10

6.39019

45 .

eV

(4.188)

Subsequently, the population of Gravitons and Photons contained within starving matter
(“ngg” and “nγγ” respectively) may be stated as,
E( M )

n gg ( M )

m gg

(4.189)

2 .n gg ( M )

n γγ( M )

(4.190)

Hence, the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter is given by “TL” according to,
T L( r , M )

n gg ( M ) .T Ω_3( r , M )
n g ω Ω_3( r , M ) , M

(4.191)

where,
1

T Ω_3( r , M )

ω Ω_3( r , M )

(4.192)

6.7.2.2.2 Sample calculations
Evaluating the preceding equations for arbitrary values of SBH mass at “rS” yields,
T L r S λ x.λ h , m x.m h

. 13
4.10173110

T L r S M S ,M S
=

5
5
T L r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

. 13
4.10173110

9
10 .yr

. 13
4.10173110
. 13
4.10173110

10
10
T L r S 10 .M S , 10 .M S

(4.193)

Evaluation at “RBH” [recalling that: “rS(λxλh) = RBH(λxλh) = λxλh”] produces,
T L R BH λ x.λ h , m x.m h

. 13
4.10173110

T L R BH M S , M S
5
5
T L R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S
10
10
T L R BH 10 .M S , 10 .M S

=

. 13
4.10173110
.
4.10173110

13

9
10 .yr

. 13
4.10173110

(4.194)

Notably, evaluation at the charge radius (i.e. ZPF equilibrium radius) of several fundamental
particles produces,
T L r uq , m uq
T L r ε, m e
T L r π, m p
T L r ν,mn

. 13
4.10173110
=

. 13
4.10173110
. 13
4.10173110

9
10 .yr

. 13
4.10173110

(4.195)

Therefore, these results indicate that all starving matter has identical gravitational lifetimes.
166

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.7.2.2.3 Simplifications
By inspection, “TL” may be simplified according to,
h

TL

m γγ

(4.196)

Evaluating yields,
1
m γγ

h.

. 13
4.10173110

=

2

.
4.10173110

13

m gg

9
10 .yr

(4.197)

6.7.3 Concluding remarks
Utilising the Hubble constant “H0” defined by the Particle Data Group (PDG) in [22], we
may determine the minimum gravitational lifetime of the Universe expressed as a scalar multiple of
“H0” according to,
H0

71.

km
s .Mpc

(4.198)

Hence,
.
T L.H 0 = 2.97830810

12

(4.199)

Therefore, the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter is approximately “3” Trillion
times the Hubble age of the Universe.
NOTES

167

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.8

Derivation of the average emission frequency per Graviton “ωg”

6.8.1 Synopsis
BH’s are the most extreme gravitational objects in nature and at least “1” Graviton should
be emitted within a few periods at “ωΩ”. However, all but a SPBH are described by a spectrum of
EGM frequencies. Subsequently, at “ωΩ” for example, not every cycle emits a Graviton with
certainty. Hence, the average emission frequency per Graviton shall be determined.
6.8.2 Assumptions
i. The “uncertainty” resolution in the preceding section is an adequate representation for
mathematical modelling purposes and is appropriate for the objective defined above.
ii. The average number of Gravitons radiated by matter at “ωPV” is given by “ng(ωPV,M)”
[i.e. the generalised form of Eq.(4.177)].
iii. The maximum number of cycles at “ωPV” it may take to emit the appropriate coherent
Graviton population is given by “ng(ωPV,M)-1”.
6.8.3 Construct
The average emission period per Graviton at “ωPV” is given by “Tg” according to,
T g n PV, r , M

T PV n PV, r , M
n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M

(4.200)

Hence, the average emission frequency per Graviton is given by “ωg” according to,
ω g n PV, r , M

n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M
T PV n PV, r , M

(4.201)

Substituting “TPV = 1 / ωPV” yields,
n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M
T PV n PV, r , M

ω PV n PV, r , M .n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M

(4.202)

Substituting “ng = ½nγ” yields,
1
ω PV n PV, r , M . .n γ ω PV n PV, r , M , M
2

ω PV n PV, r , M .n g ω PV n PV, r , M , M

(4.203)

Subsequently,
ω g n PV, r , M

1
E( M )
ω PV n PV, r , M . .
2 E γ ω PV n PV, r , M

(4.204)

Substituting “Eγ = hωPV” yields,
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

(4.205)

Simplifying produces,
1
E( M )
ω PV n PV, r , M . .
.
2 h ω PV n PV, r , M

E( M )
2 .h

(4.206)

Therefore,
ω g( M )

M .c
2 .h

168

2

(4.207)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

Hence, it follows that the total population of Gravitons residing within matter is equal to the
average emission frequency per Graviton39 multiplied by the minimum gravitational lifetime of
starving matter, given by “ngg(M)” according to,
n gg ( M ) T L.ω g ( M )

(4.208)

Note: “ngg(M) = E(M) / mgg = Mc2 / mgg”.
6.8.4 Sample calculations
Evaluating the preceding equations for various arbitrary values of SBH mass yields,
ω g m x.m h

. 18
4.99252510

ωg MS
5
ω g 10 .M S

=

. 56
1.34855310
. 61
1.34855310

( YHz)

. 66
1.34855310

10
ω g 10 .M S

n gg m x.m h

(4.209)

. 72
6.46222510

n gg M S
=

5
n gg 10 .M S
10
n gg 10 .M S

. 110
1.7455410
. 115
1.7455410
. 120
1.7455410

E m x.m h

(4.210)

. 72
6.46222510

E MS
1 .
5
m gg E 10 .M S

=

10
E 10 .M S

. 110
1.7455410
. 115
1.7455410
. 120
1.7455410

(4.211)

6.8.5 Concluding remarks

39

On average, Graviton emission occurs once every “ωg-1” seconds.

“ωg” is non-physical: it is a mathematical contrivance.
169

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.9

Why can't we observe BH’s?

6.9.1 Synopsis
The “invisibility” of BH’s has been historically attributed to the curvature of the space-time
manifold induced by their mass. However, the PV model of gravity attributes this behaviour to the
value of “KPV” of the space-time manifold induced by the radial gradient of the energy density of
the gravitational field at the event horizon.
EGM advances to the next logical step by combining the static PV gravitational field with
the harmonic nature of the ZPF resulting in a spectrum of frequencies describing the gravitational
field such that the spectral bandwidth converges to a single mode in the case of a SPBH. Moreover,
it demonstrates that the PV spectrum may be characterised by a single wavefunction due to the
magnitude of “SωΩ” where, “>> 99.99(%)” of gravitational energy exists at “ωΩ” (i.e. all other
frequencies may be usefully neglected).
Therefore, EGM implies that, for a SBH, a wavefunction radiating from “RBH” with a
frequency of “ωΩ”, should degrade into the Visible Light (VL) frequency range if a hypothetical
“EGM wavefunction detector” was sufficiently distant from it. However, three principle reasons
exist as to why SBH’s will never be detectable. The “1st” reason is discussed in this section, i.e. the
Universe is insufficiently large to permit an “EGM wavefunction detector” to detect SBH’s, even if
the incoming conjugate pair EGM signal could be appropriately isolated, amplified and filtered
“somehow(?)”40.
Even if the Universe is much older and larger than current estimates, we show that it
remains too small for a device to detect SBH’s in the VL range. Subsequently, it is implied that the
EGM wavefunction of a SBH will enter the optical wavelength range in the far distant future – long
after our species has probably disappeared from existence.
As an alternative to VL detection and confirmation of the EGM construct, we explore the
possibility of detecting BH’s within the X-Ray range. It is shown that, whilst VL prospects are
doubtful, the X-Ray range may be a potential theoretical direction for future community research, if
(and only if), the technical problems of signal isolation, amplification and filtration, emphasised in
“Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools for gravitational astronomy?” and
“Gravitational Cosmology” respectively, are overcome.
To facilitate this derivation, we must firstly specify “a” size and age of the Universe for
subsequent use. Since these values are not precisely known and are “hotly debated” within the
scientific community, we shall approximate them directly from the Hubble constant. These are
termed the “Hubble” size and age of the Universe (i.e. “r0” and “H0-1” respectively).
6.9.2 Assumptions
i. All physical BH’s, for the purpose of this derivation, are usefully represented by
approximation to SBH’s (note: SPBH’s are probably non-physical).
ii. The present size and age of the observable Universe is adequately approximated utilising
“H0” according to “r0 = c / H0” and “H0-1” respectively.
iii. “r0 >> RBH” such that “KPV(r0,M) → 1” and “ωΩ(r0,M) → ωΩ_3(r0,M)”.
iv. It will “somehow(?)” be technologically possible in the distant future to appropriately
isolate, amplify and filter the incoming conjugate wavefunction paired EGM signal to
verify the derivation.

40

The “2nd” and “3rd” reasons are discussed in: “Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools
for gravitational astronomy?” and “Gravitational Cosmology” respectively.
170

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.9.3 Construct
The VL spectrum for human beings is approximately bounded by wavelengths in the
“nanometre” (nm) range according to “400≤λVL(nm)≤750”. The X-Ray spectrum has an
approximate wavelength range of “0.3≤λX-RAY(nm)≤300”. Both these wavelength ranges can be
converted to the frequency domain according to the classical relationship “ω = c / λ”.
Utilising the expression for “ωΩ_3”, such that “r = rω” represents the distance from the centre
of mass of a celestial object to the Earth, we may determine the “visibility” of SBH’s in the VL and
X-Ray ranges by transposing for “rω” as follows,
5

St G.

r ω ω Ω_3 , M

M

2

ω Ω_3

9

(4.212)

Therefore, “rω” denotes the distance from the Earth that a celestial object (i.e. an EGM
wavefunction radiation source) must be located such that its EGM wavefunction frequency decays
to the VL or X-Ray ranges.
6.9.4 Sample calculations
6.9.4.1 SBH’s
The value of “ωΩ_3” at the edge of the presently observable Universe for various arbitrary
SBH mass configurations (i.e. expressed as solar multiples) is approximated by,
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

0.163994
= 2.118067 ( EHz)
27.355887

(4.213)

where, “EHz = 1018(Hz)”. However, computation of the EGM Flux Intensity at an Earth based
detector implies current impossibility of technical achievement according to,
C Ω_J1 r 0 , M S
5.

C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 M S
10
C Ω_J1 r 0 , 10 .M S

.
1.48429110

5

= 8.89809310
.

3

10

20 .

yJy

5.334267

(4.214)

-24

where, “yJy” denotes “yocto-Jansky” [i.e. “10 (Jansky)”].
Ignoring technical feasibility: for SBH’s at the edge of “an” observable Universe, the
following results demonstrate (i.e. being significantly greater than unity) that “a” Universe is
required to be substantially larger than “r0” for the value of “ωΩ_3” to be within the VL range
according to,
r ω ω VL( 400 ( 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 ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , M S

. 4 5.05271110
. 4
1.62975410

5
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm) ) , 10 .M S

= 1.62975410
. 6 5.05271110
. 6

10
r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , 10 .M S

. 8 5.05271110
. 8
1.62975410

(4.215)

Repeating the procedure in the X-Ray frequency range (i.e. “30(PHz)≤ωX-RAY≤30(EHz)”) produces
favourable detection results according to,

171

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r ω 30.( PHz) , M S
5.

r ω 30.( EHz) , M S

r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 M S

r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 M S

10
r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S

10
r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S

. 5
2.93002110

5.

= 2.93002110
.

7

1.166462
116.646228

. 9 1.16646210
. 4
2.93002110

6
10 .Lyr

(4.216)

15

where, “PHz = 10 (Hz)” and “Lyr = light-year”.
The preceding results indicate that the detection of SBH’s in the X-Ray range “may(?)” be
possible within observational distances of approximately “1.2 → 117” million light years from
Earth. However, computation of the EGM Flux Intensity for an Earth based detector implies current
impossibility of technical achievement according to,
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , M S , M S

2.164916

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 M S , 10 M S
5.

5.

.
= 2.16491610

3

.
2.16491610

6

10
10
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , M S , M S
5.

10

29 .

yJy

(4.217)

8.618686

5.

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 M S , 10 M S

.
= 8.61868610

3

.
8.61868610

6

10
10
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , 10 .M S , 10 .M S

10

14 .

yJy

(4.218)

6.9.4.2 SPBH’s
The existence of SPBH’s is considered to be a theoretical possibility predicted by the
dimensional manipulation of Planck properties. Physicality of such phenomena cannot be
completely discounted due to a lack of observational evidence. Hence, EGM predicts a VL range
according to,
r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

=

r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h

0.239057
0.741144

( Lyr)

(4.219)

However, computation of the EGM Flux Intensity for an Earth based detector implies current
impossibility of technical achievement according to,
C Ω_J1 r ω ω VL( 400 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h , m x.m h
C Ω_J1 r ω ω VL( 750 ( nm ) ) , m x.m h , m x.m h

=

28.979765
1.102778

10

16 .

yJy

(4.220)

A SPBH existing in the X-Ray frequency range would be “visible” within our solar system
according to,
r ω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h
r ω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h

=

. 6
2.95234410

3
10 .km

11.753495

(4.221)

However, computation of the EGM Flux Intensity for an Earth based detector implies current
impossibility of technical achievement according to,
7
C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( PHz) , m x.m h , m x.m h = 6.228302 10 .yJy

(4.222)

C Ω_J1 r ω 30.( EHz) , m x.m h , m x.m h = 2.479532 ( fJy )

(4.223)

where, “fJy” denotes “femto-Jansky” [i.e. “10-15(Jansky)”].

172

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.9.5 Concluding remarks
Assuming it is technically possible to appropriately isolate, amplify and filter an incoming
EGM wavefunction signal, the preceding construct implies the following,
i. Eventually, as the observable Universe continues to expand to thousands of times its
present size, the radiant EGM wavefunctions of BH’s at the edge of the Universe will
enter the VL range. This does not mean that they will become “visible” to the naked eye.
This only means that their EGM wavefunction will enter the “VL” part of the EM
spectrum.
ii. It “may(?)” be theoretically possible to detect BH’s utilising the X-Ray range within
observational distances of approximately “1.2 → 117” million light years from Earth.
However, significant theoretical and technical challenges would be required to be
overcome, emphasised in “Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools for
gravitational astronomy?” and “Gravitational Cosmology” respectively.
NOTES

173

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

174

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7 Fundamental Cosmology

Abstract
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.

175

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.1

Derivation of the primordial and present Hubble constants “Hα, HU”

7.1.1 Synopsis
The derivation of the primordial “Hα” and present “HU” Hubble constants by the EGM
method is possible by postulating an initial size, shape and mass of the Universe, momentarily prior
to the “Big-Bang”: we shall term this state the “Primordial Universe”. Once a description of the
“Primordial Universe” has been mathematically articulated in generalised terms, it may be
compared to a dimensionally equivalent object in accordance with BPT and similarity principles.
The objective herein is to derive a system of generalised equations, withholding numerical
evaluation. In a subsequent section, the generalised expressions will be numerically evaluated
demonstrating a calculation of “HU” in favourable agreement with expert opinion and physical
measurement of “H0”. Moreover, a value of “Hα” is presented demonstrating that the EGM method
suggests exciting new avenues for Cosmological research.
7.1.2 Assumptions
i. Dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity:
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 Gravitons41 at a spectrum of frequencies such that the Cosmological
majority of it exists in Photonic form, resulting in an approximately homogeneous massenergy 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 distance42 to the Galactic centre and “M2”
represents total Galactic mass43. 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 reference44 as the
measurement of “H0”.
ii. 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)]”}.
iii. A relationship exists between the physical proportions of a particle at the Planck scale
limit governed by “λx” and “nΩ_2” such that it may be stated as “λx = λy(r1,r2,M1,M2)”.
41

Coherent populations of conjugate Photon pairs for a minimum period of “TL”.
i.e. the distance relative to the Galactic centre from where a physical measurement of “H0” is
performed.
43
Visible + dark.
44
Our solar system.
42

176

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Upon consideration of the preceding assumptions, it follows that Eq. (3.230ii) represents the basic
form of mass-energy distribution throughout the Cosmos.
7.1.3 Construct
7.1.3.1 “AU, RU, HU”
The EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles may be applied to facilitate the
derivation of “HU” by considering the initial “i” and present “f” mass and observable size of the
Universe. Hence, utilising Eq. (3.230ii) yields,
Mi

2

.

Mf

rf

5

St ω

ri

9

(4.224)

where, “Mi = Mf” due to the conservation of mass. For simplicity, let the “rf” to “ri” ratio be defined
according to,
rf

KU

ri

(4.225)

“Stω9” in Eq. (3.230ii) represents the harmonic relationship between the values of “ωΩ” of
two dimensionally similar particles. Hence, recognising that the value of “Stω” is presently
unknown in a Cosmological context, and that the frequency and time domains are interchangeable,
let “Stω9” equal the ratio of “TL” to the present “Hubble age” of the Universe “AU” according to,
St ω

9

TL
AU

(4.226)

Hence,
5

KU

TL
AU

(4.227)

Considering the preceding assumptions and equations, one expects that a relationship should
exist between “ri,f” and “CΩ_J1(r1,2,M1,2)”; however, their precise values are not yet known.
Subsequently, we shall deduce a relationship to be tested against physical observation utilising the
following logical statements and deductions,
i. If the order of magnitude of “rf” is approximately known by physical measurement45 and
“ri” approached the Planck scale limit, then “rf >> ri” such that “e(rf / ri) → ∞”.
ii. Without empirical evidence, one’s expectation is that “CΩ_J1(r1,M1) >> CΩ_J1(r2,M2)”, such
that “[CΩ_J1(r1,M1) / CΩ_J1(r2,M2)] → ∞”.
iii. Hence, it follows that46: “e(rf / ri) → [CΩ_J1(r1,M1) / CΩ_J1(r2,M2)]” according to,
rf
ri

ln

C Ω_J1 r 1 , M 1
C Ω_J1 r 2 , M 2

(4.228)

It was demonstrated earlier that the appropriate proportions of a particle at the Planck scale
limit satisfying the EGM construct are: “r1 = λxλh” and “M1 = mxmh = λxmh / 2”. Although the
precise value of “λx” was calculated and shown to be small, we shall remove this constraint and
advance the derivation in a more generalised manner.

45
46

i.e. approximately “< 15” billion light-years.
“e” denotes the “exponential function”.
177

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Temporarily ignoring the previously computed value of “λx” facilitates the creation of a
substantially more robust construct such that the generalisation may be tested against physical
observation utilising the following logical statements and deductions,
iv. Let “λx = λy(r1,r2,M1,M2)”.
v. If “λy(r1,r2,M1,M2) → 0” then “e[1 / λy(r1,r2,M1,M2)] → ∞”.
vi. Without empirical evidence to the contrary, one’s expectation is that “nΩ_2(r2,M2) >>
nΩ_2(r1,M1)”, such that “[nΩ_2(r2,M2) / nΩ_2(r1,M1)] → ∞”.
vii. By definition: “nΩ_2(r1,M1) = 1” at the Planck scale limit for the wavefunction of the
particle to remain consistent with the EGM construct47. Subsequently, “nΩ_2(r2,M2) → ∞”.
viii. Hence, it follows that “e[1 / λy(r1,r2,M1,M2)] → nΩ_2(r2,M2)” according to,
1

λ y r 2, M 2

ln n Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

(4.229)

Subsequently, “r1” and “M1” may be written in the following block form,
λ y r 2 , M 2 .r 3

r1

λ y r 2, M 2
.M
3
2

M1

(4.230)

Thus, “KU” may be written in functional form according to,

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

(4.231)

Performing the appropriate substitutions, one obtains the reduced functional form as follows,
5

5

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

ln

1
2

9

7

.ln n
Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

3.

M3

26

9

.

M2

r2
r3

9

(4.232)

Hence, the EGM age of the Universe “AU” is given by,
A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

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

5

(4.233)

Consequently, the EGM size of the Universe “RU” may be stated as follows,
R U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

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

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

1

(4.234)

Therefore, for a “flat” Universe,
A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

(4.235)

7.1.3.2 “Hα”
The energy density of the Universe changes with time and, by mathematical definition, so
must the Hubble constant. Assuming the “Primordial Universe” was analogous to a particle at the
Planck scale limit, it is possible to predict a value for the Hubble constant at the instant of the “BigBang” (i.e. the primordial Hubble constant “Hα”) by equating it to the mass-density “ρm”.
47

i.e. “rS(r1,M1) = RBH(r1,M1)”.
178

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Utilising the contemporary density relationship according to,
3 .H
ρm
8 .π .G
2

(4.236)

such that: “H → Hα(r3,M3)” and “ρm → ρm(r3,M3)” yields,
H α r 3, M 3

2.

2. . .
π G ρ m r 3, M 3
3

(4.237)

7.1.3.3 “ρU”
Utilising the contemporary density relationship, the EGM mass-density of the Universe “ρU”
may be determined as follows,
ρ U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

3 .H U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3
8 .π .G

2

(4.238)

7.1.3.4 “MU”
Approximating the observable Universe to a spherical volume [i.e. “V(r) = 4πr3 / 3”], the
total EGM mass of the Universe “MU” (i.e. visible + dark) when “r → RU(r2,M2,r3,M3)” is given by,
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)

7.1.4 Concluding remarks
A robust generalised construct for “Hα”, “HU”, “ρU” and “MU” has been formulated which
may be tested against physical observation. Non-refractive forms were utilised throughout this
derivation (i.e. “CΩ_J1” and “nΩ_2”) because:
i. “KPV(r,M)” evaporates when “[CΩ(r1,M1) / CΩ(r2,M2)] → [CΩ_J1(r1,M1) / CΩ_J1(r2,M2)]”.
ii. “r2 >> 1” such that “KPV(r2,M2) → 1”.
NOTES

179

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2

Derivation of the CMBR temperature “TU”

7.2.1 Synopsis
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature “TU” may be
calculated utilising the EGM method by considering the total mass-energy of the Universe to be
dynamically, kinematically and geometrically similar to a particle at the Planck scale limit,
consistent with the formulation of “Hα” and “HU” in the preceding section.
By generalising the result: “ng(ωΩ_4(mxmh),mxmh) → ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3)” {see Eq. (4.187)},
we may formulate a relationship between the primordial and Galactic reference average numbers of
Gravitons radiated by similar particles. For a “Primordial Universe” particle model at the Planck
scale limit, the relationship yields “TU” by the application of proportional similarity principles,
wavefunction frequency degradation and the “Wien” Displacement Constant “KW”.
The following quotation is taken verbatim from [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hphys.html].
“When the temperature of a blackbody radiator increases, the overall radiated energy
increases and the peak of the radiation curve moves to shorter wavelengths. When the maximum is
evaluated from the Planck radiation formula, the product of the peak wavelength and the
temperature is found to be a constant.

Figure 4.21,
This relationship is called “Wien's Displacement Law” and is useful for determining the
temperature of hot radiant objects such as stars, and indeed for a determination of the temperature
of any radiant object whose temperature is far above that of its surroundings.
It should be noted that the peak of the radiation curve in the Wien relationship is the peak
only because the intensity is plotted as a function of wavelength. If frequency or some other
variable is used on the horizontal axis, the peak will be at a different wavelength.”
End of verbatim quotation.
7.2.2 Assumptions
i. The primordial average number of Gravitons radiated per “TΩ_3” period, instantaneously
after the “Big-Bang”, is given by “ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3)”.
ii. The Galactic reference average number of Gravitons “KT” (also termed the “expansive
scaling factor”), radiated per wavefunction period, may be defined as a proportion of the
primordial average given by “KT(r2,M2,r3,M3) ∝ ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3)”.
iii. Specific information about “KT’s” wavefunction period is irrelevant due to the assignment
of proportional similarity characteristics between the primordial (i.e. “Primordial
Universe”) and Galactic reference averages described above.
180

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.2.3 Construct
Generalising the result “ng(ωΩ_4(mxmh),mxmh) → ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3)” facilitates the creation
of a substantially more robust construct such that it may be tested against physical observation
utilising the following logical statements and deductions,
i. If “ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3) → 0” then “e[KT(r2,M2,r3,M3) / ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3)] → ∞”.
ii. Without empirical evidence to the contrary, one’s expectation is that “Hα(r3,M3) >>
HU(r2,M2,r3,M3)”, such that “[Hα(r3,M3) / HU(r2,M2,r3,M3)] → ∞”.
iii. Hence, it follows that “e[KT(r2,M2,r3,M3) / ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3)] → [Hα(r3,M3) / HU(r2,M2,r3,M3)]”,
yielding the expansive scaling factor according to,
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)

“Wien's Displacement Law” provides the frequency (or wavelength) at which “Planck’s
Law” has maximum specific intensity. [46] Consequently, the hotter an object is, the shorter the
wavelength at which it will emit most of its radiation and the frequency for maximal (i.e. peak)
radiation power is found by dividing “KW” by the temperature. [24]
If the present size of the Universe were held static (i.e. spatial expansion was miraculously
halted) and its total mass-energy (i.e. visible + dark) were compressed48 such that it was
dynamically, kinematically and geometrically analogous to a particle at the Planck scale limit such
that “nΩ_2(r3,M3) = 1” (i.e. only one wavefunction describes the “Primordial Universe”), then a
mass-less observer at the periphery of the presently observable Universe, given by
“RU(r2,M2,r3,M3)”, would measure its EGM wavefunction frequency to be “ωΩ_3(r,M) →
ωΩ_3(RU(r2,M2,r3,M3),M3)”.
Recognising that “λΩ_3(RU(r2,M2,r3,M3),M3) = c / ωΩ_3(RU(r2,M2,r3,M3),M3)” yields the
expansive independent average temperature of the observable Universe “TW” (also termed the
“thermodynamic scaling factor”) according to,
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)

Hence, applying “Wien's Displacement Law” for blackbody radiation, scaled by “KT for application
to the EGM domain by preservation of dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity, yields the
CMBR temperature (i.e. the expansive dependent average) as follows,
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)
Therefore,
i. “TW” denotes the Cosmological expansive independent average temperature because the
expression does not contain “HU”.
ii. “TU” denotes the Cosmological expansive dependent average temperature because the
expression contains “HU”.
7.2.4 Concluding remarks
It is clear from the preceding construct that the CMBR temperature is a function of the
Hubble constant.

48

Mimicking the “Primordial Universe” and excluding space-time manifold expansion from
consideration.
181

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.3

Numerical solutions for “Hα, AU, RU, ρU, MU, HU” and “TU”

7.3.1 “r2, r3, M2, M3”
Thus far, we have determined mathematical relationships for “Hα, AU, RU, ρU, MU, HU” and
“TU”. However, to numerically evaluate these expressions, we require precise definitions of “r2, r3,
M2” and “M3”. If the “Primordial Universe” was analogous to a particle at the Planck scale limit,
then “RBH” must have coincided with “rS” (i.e. the “Primordial Universe” was analogous to a
SPBH) because nothing (i.e. including a space-time manifold) existed beyond “RBH”.
This assertion is reinforced by the contemporary scientific belief that the “Big-Bang” was not
an explosion in the space-time manifold, but was an explosion of the space-time manifold.
Moreover, it was previously shown, by the calculation of “rS”, that a Planck scale particle
configuration of “r = λh” and “M = mh” is inconsistent with the EGM construct and “non-physical”.
The argument for this conclusion is easily demonstrated according to,
r S mh
1 . r m .m
S x h
λh
λx

1=

144.219703
.
4.21884710

13

(%)

(4.243)

r S mh

1 = 22.109851 ( % )

R BH m h

(4.244)

These results indicate that a Planck scale particle of radius “λh” and mass “mh” is nonphysical because “rS(mh) > λh” {i.e. “[rS(mh) / λh] > 1”}. Moreover, they also demonstrate that
“RBH” is smaller than “rS” {i.e. “[rS(mh) / RBH(mh)] > 1”}. This means that the event horizon is
inside the singularity, not outside as expected and required. Notably, “rS” of a particle with radius
“λxλh” and mass “mxmh” is equal to the radius of the particle [i.e. “rS(mxmh) = λxλh”] hence, it is
physical. Thus, “r3” and “M3” may be given according to,
r3 = λxλh

(4.245)

M3 = mxmh = λxmh / 2

(4.246)

At the commencement of the “Hα” and “HU” derivation process, the following assertion was
articulated: “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 mass
to be utilised as a GRP”.
Moreover, it was also stated that - for the Galactic formation to be related by proportional
similarity to the “Primordial Universe”, it should be the Galactic formation from which the Hubble
constant and the CMBR temperature were measured. This constraint ensures that no currently
unknown phenomena influence the calculation.
The GRP is formulated by the compression of all matter (i.e. visible + dark), within the
Galactic formation, to the Planck scale. Hence, it follows that the GRP’s dimensions must be
transformed by the EGM adjusted Planck characteristics of Length “Kλ” and Mass “Km”, as derived
by Storti. et. Al. in [13], such that “r2 → r2(r)” and “M2 → M2(M)”.
Therefore, for consistent and complete generalised dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity of any GRP to a SPBH in terms of radius and mass, “r2” and “M2” may be defined
according to,
r2(r) = Kλ⋅r
(4.247)
M2(M) = Km⋅M = Kλ⋅M

(4.248)

where, “Kλ = Km = [π / 2](1 / 3) ≈ 1.162447”.
182

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.3.2 Computational results
Utilising the expressions for “r2, r3, M2” and “M3” defined above such that the GRP is
formed from the “Milky-Way” (MW), solutions for “Hα, AU, RU, ρU, MU, HU” and “TU” may be
given according to,
i. “r = Ro” denotes the mean distance from the Sun to the MW Galactic centre.
ii. “Ro = 8(kpc)” as defined by the PDG. [20]
iii. “M = MG” denotes the total mass (i.e. visible + dark) of the MW Galaxy.
iv. “MG ≈ 6 x1011” solar masses as defined by [21].
v. “H0 = 71(km/s/Mpc)” as defined by the PDG. [22]
vi. “T0 = 2.725(K)” as defined by the PDG. [20]
H α λ x.λ h , m x.m h

ωh
λx

(4.249)

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)

33 kg
ρ U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 8.453235 10 .
3
cm

(4.252)

. 52 ( kg )
M U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h = 9.28458610

(4.253)

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
H0

1 = 5.515064 ( % )

1 .
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , K m.M G, m x.m h
T0

.
1 = 9.08391310

(4.256)
3

( %)

(4.257)

7.3.3 Honourable mention
It should not escape attention that the absence of “Kλ”, “λx”, “Km” and “mx” from “r2, r3,
M2” and “M3” respectively, continues to produce impressive results, re-affirming the validity of the
EGM construct as follows,
H U R o , λ x.λ h , M G, m x.m h
H U R o , λ h , M G, m h
H U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h
T U R o , λ x.λ h , M G, m x.m h
T U R o , λ h , M G, m h
T U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h

183

66.700842
= 69.672169
70.06923

km
s .Mpc

(4.258)

2.716201
= 1.199134 ( K )
1.202877

(4.259)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

The EGM construct error associated with “HU” and “TU” for the various functional
deviations with respect to physical measurement is given by,
H U R o , λ x.λ h , M G, m x.m h
1 .
H0

H U R o , λ h , M G, m h

6.055152
1=

H U K λ .R o , λ h , K m.M G, m h

1.310944

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

1.870184 ( % )

(4.260)

0.322893
1=

55.995089 ( % )
55.857737

(4.261)

7.3.4 Concluding remarks
The EGM construct produces highly precise numerical approximations, in agreement with
physical measurement as reported by the PDG. The correlation of “HU” and “TU” (including the
functional deviations presented) to the experimental evidence, demonstrates a clear relationship
between “H0” and “T0”, suggesting exciting new avenues of theoretical Cosmological research.
An important question arises as to why the relationship between “Kλ” and “Km” is different
to the relationship existing between “λx” and “mx”. The reason for this is because “λx” and “mx”
apply specifically to a SPBH – a theoretically physical object with a singularity radius, an event
horizon and a value of “nΩ” equal to unity.
The GRP does not physically exist, it is a mathematical contrivance formulated by
dimensional similarity principles approaching the Planck scale. It does not have a singularity radius
or event horizon associated with it and relative to the position of the Earth, has a value of “nΩ”
much greater than unity.
Therefore, the reasons for the difference in relationship between “λx,mx” and “Kλ,Km” may
be summarised as follows:
i.
The relationship between “λx” and “mx” is governed by “nΩ(λxλh,mxmh) = 1”.
ii.
The relationship between “Kλ” and “Km” is governed by the Planck scale such that
“nΩ(r2(r),M2(M)) >> 1” hence, “M2(M) ≠ (Kλ / 2)⋅M”.
NOTES

184

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.4

Determination of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on “HU” and “TU”

7.4.1 Synopsis
The question of the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on “H0” has long thought to be
certain. It has been assumed that the “driving” component of the accelerating expansion of the
Universe is the presence of “Dark Matter / Energy”. EGM disagrees with this assertion because it
(i.e. EGM) maintains that Photon's have mass. Therefore, a significant contribution to the “missing
mass” relating to “Dark Matter / Energy” theories, is in-fact - Photonic mass.
Note: the impact of “Dark Matter / Energy” on “T0” has never been (to date) seriously considered,
supported by meaningful and accurate calculations, by mainstream Physicists.
7.4.2 Assumptions
i. The EGM construct is valid.
ii. The values of “HU” and “TU” calculated in the preceding section are correct.
iii. The “visible mass” of the MW Galaxy is “MG / 3”, as defined by [21].
7.4.3 Construct
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
1
T U K λ .R o , λ x.λ h , .K m.M G, m x.m h
3

(4.264)
1 = 0.542607 ( % )

(4.265)

7.4.4 Concluding remarks
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 view asserted in [23] 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”.
185

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.5

“TU” as a function of a generalised Hubble constant “TU → TU2”

Utilising “ωΩ_3”, “TU” may be expressed in terms of a generalised Hubble constant “TU2(H)”
according to,
9

λ Ω_3( r , M )

c

c

ω Ω_3( r , M )

9

5

1 . r
St G M 2

c.
2

M
St G.
5
r

(4.266)

If “r → (c / H)” and “M → M3” then,
9

c
c λ x.
λ Ω_3 ,
mh
H 2

c.

1 .
St G

5
9

H
λx
2

c.
2

.m
h

1 .
2
St G λ x.m h

2

. c
H

5

(4.267)

Recognising that “ng(ωΩ_3(r3,M3),M3) = (8 / 3)” yields “KT(H)” as follows,
K T( H )

8 . H α r 3, M 3
ln
3
H

(4.268)

Hence,
KW

T W( H)
λ Ω_3

c λ x.
,
mh
H 2

(4.269)

T U2( H ) K T( H ) .T W ( H )

(4.270)

Recognising that “Hα(r3,M3) = ωh / λx” yields,
K T( H ) .T W ( H )

ωh
8.
.
ln
3
λ x.H

KW
λ Ω_3

c λ x.
,
mh
H 2

(4.271)

Performing the appropriate substitutions produces,
9

ωh
λ .m
8 KW.
. St . x h
T U2( H ) .
ln
G
3 c
2
λ x.H

2

. H
c

5

(4.272)

Let,
9

.
8 . St G . λ x m h
St T
5
3 .c
2
c

2

(4.273)

Injecting “StG” and simplifying yields,
9

4. 3. 1 . λ x
3 4 c5 π .λ 2
h
3

St T

2

(4.274)

Therefore,
T U2( H )

K W .St T .ln

186

ωh
λ x.H

9

. H5

(4.275)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.6

Derivation of “Ro”, “MG”, “HU2” and “ρU2” from “TU2”

7.6.1 Synopsis
The value of “Ro” has been substantially improved in recent years and is stated by the PDG
as being “Ro = 8(kpc)” with an experimental uncertainty given as “∆Ro = 0.5(kpc)”. The value of
MW total Galactic mass, expressed in solar masses as being “MG / MS ≈ 6 x1011”, is quite rough.
In-fact, one has difficulty finding an “MG / MS” uncertainty value anywhere in the scientific
literature [note: “kpc” = kilo-parsec].
The principle reason for “MG” being so generalised is due to the lack of current knowledge
around “Dark Matter / Energy”. However, utilising the relationship between “TU” and “HU”
articulated in “TU2”, we are able to significantly improve upon the estimates for “Ro” and “MG” by
determining a convergent numerical solution bound by the experimental uncertainty associated with
“Ro” (i.e. “∆Ro”).
Before commencing the derivation process, we shall generalise “HU” such that “Ro → r”,
“MG → M” and “HU → HU2(r,M)” according to,
H U2( r , M )

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

(4.276)

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

( K)

2.810842

(4.277)

Computing values of “TU2” associated with “∆Ro”, yields violation of “T0” experimental
boundaries [i.e. “∆T0 ± 0.001(K)”]. In other words, the “TU2” result returned when “r = (Ro ± ∆Ro)”
is beyond “T0 ± ∆T0” when “M = MG” according to,
T U2 H U2 R o

∆R o , M G

T U2 H U2 R o

∆R o , M G

=

2.720213
2.729021

( K)

(4.278)

Repeating the calculation based upon visible MW Galactic mass (i.e. “M = MG/3”) yields,
T U2 H U2 R o
T U2 H U2 R o

1
∆R o , .K m.M G
3
1
∆R o , .K m.M G
3

=

2.733025
2.741859

( K)

(4.279)

The preceding results infer numerical avenues for the accurate determination of “Ro” and
“MG” based upon precise measurement of “T0”. It is likely that the experimental measurement of
“T0” will advance at a substantially greater pace than “Ro” or “MG”. In the proceeding construct, we
shall establish a method to accurately determine the values of “Ro” and “MG”, which may be
observationally tested in the future when the experimental capability of “∆T0 → 0(K)” is achieved.
7.6.2 Assumptions
i. The EGM Cosmological construct thus far is correct.
ii. The values of “Ro”, “MG” and “MG/3” are approximately correct.
iii. The values of “T0”, “∆T0” and “∆Ro” are precisely correct.
187

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.6.3 Construct
7.6.3.1 “Ro” or “MG”
Compliant mutually exclusive boundary values for “Ro” and “MG” may be determined
numerically within the “MathCad 8 Professional” environment utilising the “Given” and “Find”
commands as follows,
Let “rx1”, “rx2”, “mg1” and “mg2” denote the algorithm pre-factors required by the computational
environment with initialisation string: “rx1 = rx2 = mg1 = mg2 =1”.
Given
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , M G
T U2 H U2 R o , m g1 .M G
T U2 H U2 r x2.R o , M G
T U2 H U2 R o , m g2 .M G

T0

∆T 0

(4.280)
T0

∆T 0

(4.281)

r x1
r x2
m g1

Find r x1, r x2, m g1 , m g2

m g2

(4.282)

Hence,
r x1
r x2
m g1

0.989364
=

1.017883
1.057292
0.911791

m g2

(4.283)

Substituting “rx1”, “rx2”, “mg1” and “mg2” into “TU2” produces “T0 ± ∆T0”, confirming that the
algorithm executed correctly as follows,
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
2.724

( K)

2.726

(4.284)

Thus, the mutually exclusive boundary values satisfying the condition “TU2 = T0 ± ∆T0” become,
R o.

r x1

=

r x2

7.914908
8.143063

( kpc )

(4.285)

. 11
M G m g1
6.34375310
.
=
M S m g2
. 11
5.47074910
r x1 m g1
r x2 m g2

1=

(4.286)

1.063645 5.729219
1.788292

188

8.820858

(%)

(4.287)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Therefore, “TU2 = T0 ± ∆T0” is satisfied when:
• “0.9894Ro < Ro < 1.0179Ro” or “0.9118MG < MG < 1.0573MG”.
7.6.3.2 “Ro” and “MG”
Compliant simultaneous boundary values for “Ro” and “MG” (i.e. to “6” decimal places)
satisfying the condition “TU2 = T0 ± ∆T0” may be determined numerically within the “MathCad 8
Professional” environment utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands as follows,
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

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

T0

∆T 0

(4.288)
∆T 0

(4.289)

Let,
r x3
r x4
m g3

Find r x1, r x2, m g1 , m g2

m g4

(4.290)

Hence,
r x3
r x4
m g3

0.984956
=

1.013348
0.977007
0.977007

m g4

(4.291)

Substituting “rx3”, “rx4”, “mg3” and “mg4” into “TU2” produces “T0 ± ∆T0”, confirming that the
algorithm executed correctly as follows,
T U2 H U2 r x3.R o , m g3 .M G
T U2 H U2 r x4.R o , m g4 .M G

=

2.724
2.726

( K)

(4.292)

Thus, the simultaneous boundary values satisfying the condition “TU2 = T0 ± ∆T0” become,
R o.

r x3

=

r x4

7.879647
8.106786

( kpc )

(4.293)

. 11
M G m g3
5.8620410
.
=
M S m g4
. 11
5.8620410
r x3 m g3
r x4 m g4

1=

1.50441 2.29934
1.334822 2.29934

(4.294)
(%)

(4.295)

Therefore, “TU2 = T0 ± ∆T0” is satisfied when:
• “0.9850Ro < Ro < 1.0133Ro” and “MG / MS = 5.8620 x1011”.
189

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.6.3.3 “Ro”, “MG”, “HU2” and “ρU2”
7.6.3.3.1 “Ro” and “MG”
Compliant simultaneous values for “Ro” and “MG” satisfying the condition “TU2 = T0” may
be determined numerically within the “MathCad 8 Professional” environment utilising the “Given”
and “Find” commands as follows,
Given
T U2 H U2 r x1.R o , m g1 .M G

T0

(4.296)

Let,
r x5
m g5

Find r x1, m g1

(4.297)

Hence,
r x5
m g5

1.013403

=

1.052361

(4.298)

Substituting “rx5” and “mg5” into “TU2” produces “T0”, confirming that the algorithm executed
correctly as follows,
T U2 H U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G

= 2.725 ( K )

(4.299)

Thus, the simultaneous values satisfying the condition “TU2 = T0” become,
r x5.R o = 8.107221 ( kpc )
m g5 .

MG

(4.300)

.
= 6.31416710

11

MS

r x5
m g5

(4.301)
1=

1.340256
5.236123

(%)

(4.302)

Therefore, “TU2 = T0” is satisfied when:
• “Ro = 8.1072(kpc)” and “MG / MS = 6.3142 x1011”.
7.6.3.3.2 “HU2” and “ρU2”
If “T0” is exactly correct, then “HU2” and “ρU2” may be determined utilising the derived
values for “rx5” and “mg5” according to,
H U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G = 67.095419

km
s .Mpc

(4.303)

Hence,
ρ U2( r , M )

3 .H U2( r , M )

2

8 .π .G

(4.304)

33 kg
ρ U2 r x5.R o , m g5 .M G = 8.456036 10 .
3
cm

190

(4.305)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.6.4 Concluding remarks
The preceding construct demonstrates a method by which it is possible to determine the
values of “Ro” and “MG” for the MW Galaxy from an exact measurement of “T0”.
NOTES

191

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7.7

Experimentally implicit derivation of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF”

7.7.1 Synopsis
The ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF” is very important to Cosmology as it is believed to
be the reason for the “flat expansion phenomenon” as determined by the “Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe” (WMAP). The EGM method may be applied to derive “UZPF” by considering the
average EGM mass-density of the Cosmos, given by the form “ρm(r,M)” – according to,
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

(4.306)

This result may also be expressed in “ρU2” notation as,
ρ U2 R o , M G = 8.453235 10

33 .

kg
3

cm

(4.307)

Hence, if we compare “ρU2(rx5Ro,mg5MG)” to “ρU2(Ro,MG)”, the ratio produces the EGM density
parameter “ΩEGM”, leading to the threshold value (i.e. upper limiting estimate) of “UZPF”.
7.7.2 Assumptions
i. The experimental value of “T0” is exactly correct.
ii. “ρU2(rx5Ro,mg5MG)” being based upon the experimentally measured value of “T0”, differs
from the idealised EGM result “ρU2(Ro,MG)” due to the “flat expansion phenomenon”.
iii. The ZPF energy density value, responsible for the “flat expansion phenomenon”, is a
negative quantity.
7.7.3 Construct
The EGM total density parameter “ΩEGM” may be written according to,
Ω EGM

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

(4.308)

Evaluating produces,
Ω EGM = 1.000331

(4.309)

Subsequently, considering the contemporary representation of Cosmological density parameter “Ω”
such that “Ω → ΩEGM”, the critical EGM total density may be identified as “ρU2(Ro,MG)” from,

ρ
ρc

(4.310)

where, “ρc” denotes critical Cosmological total density.
The PDG state in [20] that the total density parameter is “ΩPDG = 1.003” such that its
constitution may be decomposed according to,
Ω PDG Ω m Ω γ .. Ω ν

ΩΛ

(4.311)

where, each term on the Right-Hand-Side (RHS) of the equation denotes a physical contribution
such as visible matter “Ωm”, Photon’s “Ωγ”, Neutrinos “Ων” and Dark Energy “ΩΛ” etc.
However, under the EGM construct all matter radiates populations of high frequency
conjugate Photon pairs (possessing non-zero mass). Subsequently, all the typical density terms may
be “clumped together” such that “ΩEGM ≈ ΩPDG” according to,
192

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Ω EGM
Ω PDG

= 0.997339

(4.312)

The geometry of the Cosmological space-time manifold has been measured by WMAP to be
nearly flat, hence; the Friedman equation written in ZPF considerate form is “ΩEGM + ΩZPF = 1”
where, “ΩZPF” denotes the “ZPF” density parameter. Approximated evaluation yields,
Ω ZPF

Ω EGM

1

.
Ω ZPF = 3.31400710

(4.313)
4

(4.314)

Therefore, the Cosmological average ZPF energy density may be approximated according to,
3 .c .
Ω ZPF .
H U2 R o , M G
8 .π .G
2

U ZPF

U ZPF = 2.51778 10

2

(4.315)

13 .

Pa

(4.316)

7.7.4 Concluding remarks
The utilisation of “T0” (i.e. a physical measurement) leads to an experimentally implicit
derivation of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF” characterised by the following boundary
values:
i. ΩZPF < -3.32 x10-4.
ii. UZPF < -2.52 x10-13(Pa).
On a human scale, this translates to levels of ZPF energy according to,
iii. “< -252(yJ/mm3)”.
On an astronomical scale, this becomes,
iv. “< -0.252(mJ/km3)”.
v. “< -7.4 x1012(YJ/pc3)”.
On a Cosmological scale, this becomes,
vi. “< -6.6 x1041(YJ/RU3)”.
The deceleration parameter,
vii. “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)”.

193

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

194

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8 Advanced Cosmology

Abstract
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 Universe49 is developed and compared to the Standard Model (SM) of Cosmology. 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.

49

As defined by the EGM construct.
195

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Time dependent CMBR temperature “TU2 → TU3”

8.1

8.1.1 Synopsis
A Hubble constant dependent expression is formulated and graphed for the CMBR
temperature in the time domain. This may be further developed into a generalised time dependent
representation of the average CMBR temperature; laying foundations such that the relationship to
the primordial Hubble constant is emphasised and thermodynamic rates of change may be
subsequently articulated in the proceeding section.
8.1.2 Assumptions
i. The Universe is “flat” (i.e. as indicated by WMAP).
ii. “t = 1 / H”.
8.1.3 Construct
Recalling that “Hα(λxλh,mxmh) = ωh / λx” facilitates the derivation of a time dependent
expression for CMBR temperature. Simplifying notation such that “ωh / λx = Hα” and substituting
into “TU2”, yields a primordially dependent form where “TU2 → TU3” according to,
T U3( H ) K W .St T .ln

9

. H5

H

(4.317)

Let: “µ = 1 / 3” and “H = HβHα” where, “1 ≥ Hβ > 0” such that it denotes a dimensionless range
variable. Hence,
T U3 H β

K W .St T .ln

1

. H .H
β α

5 .µ

2

(4.318)

Determining local maxima in the conventional manner (i.e. “dTU3/dHβ = 0”) yields,
1 .
d
K W .St T .ln
H β .H α

dH β

5 .µ

2

0

(4.319)

1

Hβ e

2
5 .µ

(4.320)

If the freezing temperature of water [i.e. “0°(C) = 273(K)”] represents “some sort” of
Cosmological milestone, we may determine the value of the Hubble constant and the age of the
Universe satisfying this temperature condition numerically utilising the “Given” and “Find”
commands within the “MathCad 8 Professional” environment according to the following algorithm,
Let “Hβ2” denote the algorithm pre-factor required by the computational environment with an
appropriate initialisation value such that the error vector converges to zero.
Given
T U2 10

H β2

H β2

.H
α

273.( K )

(4.321)

Find H β2

(4.322)

Hence,
H β2 = 56.450309

196

(4.323)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.1.4 Sample calculations

The primordial Hubble constant (i.e. the value at the instant of the “Big-Bang”) was,
. 61
H α = 8.46094110

km
s .Mpc

(4.324)

The maximum average Cosmological temperature since the “Big-Bang” was,
1

T U3 e

2
5 .µ

. 31 ( K )
= 3.19551810

(4.325)

The value of the Hubble constant at the maximum average Cosmological temperature
was,
1

e

2
5 .µ .

. 61
H α = 1.39858410

km
s .Mpc

The present Cosmological value of “ H β ” is,
H U2 R o , M G

= 7.928705 10

61

T U3( 1 )

=

0
0

( K)

(4.328)

The value of the Hubble constant coinciding with an average Cosmological temperature
of “273(K)” was,
10

(4.327)

The average Cosmological temperature at the moment of the “Big-Bang” was,
T U2 H α

(4.326)

H β2

.H = 2.99992310
. 5
α

km
.
s Mpc

(4.329)

The Cosmological age coinciding with an average Cosmological temperature of
“273(K)” was,
10

H β2

.H
α

1

6
= 3.259461 10 .yr

(4.330)

8.1.5 Sample plots

See overleaf.

197

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.1.5.1 “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

198

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.1.5.2 “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)

199

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.1.6 Honourable mention
It should not escape attention that the preceding graphs clearly exhibit “Planck-Black-Body”
radiation characteristics.
8.1.7 Concluding remarks
The key determinations are:
i. The preceding graphs imply that the “Primordial Universe” prior to the “Big-Bang”
was non-physical and at the moment of the “Big-Bang”, it became physical. This
suggests that the space-time geometry of the “Primordial Universe” prior to the “BigBang” was “inverted”50 in relation to its present form51.
ii. Prior to the “Big-Bang”52, “T0 → -∞(K)”.
iii. At the instant of the “Big-Bang”53, “T0 = 0(K)”.
iv. Since the “Big-Bang”54, the maximum value of “T0” was “≈ 3.2 x1031(K)”.
v. The present value of “T0” is “2.724752(K)”.
NOTES

50

i.e. it was analogous to a non-physical “Planck-Particle” such that “RBH < rS”.
i.e. analogous to a SBH where “RBH > rS”.
52
i.e. at “t = 0”.
53
i.e. at “t = 1 / Hα”.
54
i.e. at “t = t1”: refer to proceeding section.
51

200

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Rates of change of CMBR temperature “TU3 → TU4 → d1,2,3TU4/dt1,2,3”

8.2

8.2.1 Synopsis
This section develops expressions and graphical representations of the rates of change of
CMBR temperature within the first few moments of the “Big-Bang”, based upon the preceding
construct.
8.2.2 Assumptions

No new assumptions are asserted.

8.2.3 Construct
If “t = (HβHα)-1” then “TU3 → TU4” according to,
1
T U4( t ) K W .St T .ln H α .t .
t

5 .µ

2

(4.331)

Determining the local maxima of CMBR temperature in the time domain utilising standard
techniques produces “t1” according to,
d
T U4( t )
dt

K W .St T .

µ

1 . 1
t t5

1 . 1
K W .St T .
t t5

µ

2

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

1

(4.332)

2

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

1

0

(4.333)

Subsequently: if “t → t1” then,
1

t1

e

2
5 .µ .

1

(4.334)

Hence, let the expression for the “1st” derivative of the CMBR temperature be given by,
K W .St T .

dT dt ( t )

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

t

5 .µ

2

1

(4.335)

.t

The local minima of the “1st” CMBR temperature derivative “t2” is determined according to,
2

1 . 1
T U4( t ) K W .St T .
2
5
2
dt
t
t
d

1 . 1
K W .St T .
2
5
t
t

µ

µ

2

. 5 .µ 2 . ln H .t . 5 .µ 2
α

1

2

1

(4.336)

2

. 5 .µ 2 . ln H .t . 5 .µ 2
α

1

2

1

0

(4.337)

Subsequently: if “t → t2” then,
10 .µ

t2

e

2

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

201

1
1

. 1

(4.338)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

Hence, let the expression for the “2nd” derivative of the CMBR temperature be given by,
K W .St T .

dT2 dt2 ( t )

2
2
5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ

t

2

5 .µ

1

2

1

.t2

(4.339)

The local maxima of the “2nd” CMBR temperature derivative “t3” is determined according
to,
d

3

d t3

T U4( t )

1 . 1
K W .St T .
3
5
t
t

K W .St T .

1 . 1
t

3

t

5

µ

µ

2

. 5 .µ 2 .ln H .t . 5 .µ 2 . 5 .µ 2
α

3

2

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

2

2

(4.340)

2

. 5 .µ 2 .ln H .t . 5 .µ 2 . 5 .µ 2
α

3

2

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

2

2

0

(4.341)

Subsequently: if “t → t3” then,
2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

t3

e

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
3

. 1

2

(4.342)

Hence, let the expression for the “3rd” derivative of the CMBR temperature be given by,
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
.t3

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

2

2

(4.343)

8.2.4 Sample calculations
Evaluating expressions numerically yields,
dT dt t 1 = 0

K

dT2 dt2 t 2 = 0

s

(4.344)
K
s

dT3 dt3 t 3 = 0

2

(4.345)

K
s

3

(4.346)

Expressing values in perspective produces,
1

t1
t2

0.364697
=

2.206287
4.196153

10

42 .

s

6.205726

t3

(4.347)

202

www.deltagroupengineering.com

dT dt

1
. 74
1.32321810

dT dt t 1

=

dT dt t 2

s

(4.348)
1
. 116
7.65967810

dT2 dt2 t 1

=

dT2 dt2 t 2

. 114
2.02615310

K

0

s

2

. 112
8.77595210

dT2 dt2 t 3
dT3 dt3

K

. 72
1.05719310
. 71
9.25283810

dT dt t 3
dT2 dt2

0

(4.349)

1
. 159
6.22716710

dT3 dt3 t 1

=

. 156
3.77545710
155

.
1.45285710

dT3 dt3 t 2

K
s

3

0

dT3 dt3 t 3

(4.350)

T U2 H α
T U2
T U2
T U2

1

0

t1
1
t2
1

. 31
3.19551810
=

. 31
3.03432210

( K)

. 31
2.83254210

t3

(4.351)

An example of the CMBR temperature prior to the “Big-Bang” is given by,
4
. 34 ( K )
T U2 10 .H α = 7.41414610

(4.352)

8.2.5 Sample plots

See overleaf.

203

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.1 “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)

204

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.2 “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)

205

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.3 “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)

206

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.4 “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)

207

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.5 “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)

208

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.6 “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)

209

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.7 “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)

210

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.8 “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)

211

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.9 “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)

212

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

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.10 “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)

213

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

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.11 “|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)

214

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.5.12 “|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)

215

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.2.6 Concluding remarks
The preceding graphs exhibit interesting properties of the CMBR temperature in relation to
the Hubble constant. In particular, an inference is presented to precisely differentiate and articulate
the differences between the inflationary period of the “Primordial Universe” (i.e. “t < t1”) and the
expansion period of the present Universe (i.e. “t > t1”).
NOTES

216

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Rates of change of the Hubble constant “d1,2H/dt1,2”

8.3

8.3.1 Synopsis
The rates of change of the Hubble constant in the time domain “d1,2H/dt1,2” are useful
relationships confirming the assertion that the Cosmos can never end with a “Big-Crunch”. This
shall be comprehensively discussed in the next section, but for the moment, we shall develop the
tools (i.e. expressions and graphs) we require to conduct the analysis.
This section achieves, by differentially combining the CMBR temperature in the Hubble and
time domains – via numerical approximation methods, verification that the assigned temporal
property of “t = 1 / H” produces the appropriate “d1,2H/dt1,2” curves resulting in,
i. Mathematical expressions for “dH/dt”, “d2H/dt2” and “|H|” in the time domain.
ii. Graphical representations of “dH/dt vs. (HβηHα)-1”, “d2H/dt2 vs. (HβηHα)-1” and “|H| vs.
(HβηHα)-1” – qualitatively and quantitatively tested against “TU2,3 vs. |H|”.
Note: neither an expression nor graphical representation of “d3H/dt3 vs. t = (HβHα)-1” has been
included - for reasons of brevity.
8.3.2 Assumptions

No new assumptions are asserted.

8.3.3 Construct
Substituting “µ = 1 / 3” into “TU3”, the generalised “1st” derivative of the CMBR
temperature with respect to the Hubble constant “dTU3/dH”: is given by,

. 2
d
d
.H5 µ
T U3( H )
K W .St T .ln
dH
dH
H
5 .µ

. 2
d
.H5 µ K .St . H
K W .St T .ln
W T
dH
H
H

(4.353)

2

. 5 .ln

.µ 2

1

H

(4.354)

Recognising that “TU3 → TU4”, the “1st” derivative of the Hubble constant with respect to time
“dH/dt” may be determined according to,
5 .µ

H
K W .St T .

d
d
T U3( H ) .
t
dH
d T U4( t )

5 .µ

H
K W .St T .

2

. 5 .ln
H

1 . 1
K W .St T .
t t5

. 5 .ln

µ

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

2

. 5 .ln

2

. 5 .ln H .t .µ
α

217

1

1 . 1
t t5

1

(4.355)

H
2

1

2

H

1

.µ 2

H

5 .µ

2

H

1 . 1
K W .St T .
t t5

H
µ

2

.µ 2

1

H
µ

2

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

1

(4.356)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5 .µ

2

H

. 5 .ln

H

.µ 2

t . . 5 .µ 2 . . H α . 2
(H t)
5 ln
µ
H
H

1

H

1 . 1
t t5

µ

2

. 5 .ln H .t .µ 2
α

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

1

1

1

(4.357)

Hence,
H

d
H
dt

.
. 2

5µ .
( H .t )
t

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

5 .ln

.µ 2

1
1

H

(4.358)

Let: “H → Hα” such that “dH/dt → dHdt” and “Hγ ∝ Hβη” according to,
t

1
H γ .H α
5 .ln H α .

d
H
dt
H α.

1
H γ .H α

(4.359)

.

2
5 .µ

.

5 .ln

1
H γ .H α

1
.µ 2
.
Hγ Hα

.µ 2

1

1

(4.360)

Therefore,
dH dt H γ

2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

5 .µ

1

(4.361)

The temporal ordinate of the local maxima “t4” may be determined in the typical manner,
2

H α .H γ
d
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2
dH γ

5 .µ

d
dH dt H γ
dH γ
2
H α .H γ
d
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

dH γ
5 .µ


(4.362)

2

. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2 . 1
2

5 .µ

1

1

5 .µ

2

1

(4.363)

2

2
5 .µ

. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2 . 1

5 .µ

2

1

0

(4.364)
1

Hγ e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

(4.365)

Hence,
1

t4

e

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

. 1

(4.366)

The “2nd” time derivative “dH2dt2” may be derived similarly as follows,
Let,

218

www.deltagroupengineering.com

d

2

d t2

H

d t2
H

d
dt

H

2

d

dH2 dt2

( H .t )

(4.367)
.

5 .µ

2

.t

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

5 .ln

1

.µ 2

1

H

(4.368)

Subsequently,
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.

5 .µ

1
H γ .H α

.µ 2

2

1

1

H
2
5 .µ . ln H α .

d t2

1

.
2

.

2

1
H γ .H α

(4.369)

1
. 5 .µ 2
.
Hγ Hα

5 .ln

.µ 2

1

2

1

1

(4.370)

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

5 .µ

dH2 dt2 H γ

1

2

1

(4.371)

The temporal ordinate of the local minima “t5” is determined as follows,
3

2

H α .H γ
d
. 5 .µ 2 . ln 1 . 5 .µ 2
2

dH γ
5 .µ

1

2

1

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

5 .µ

1

ln

2

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

5 .µ

ln

1

1

2 .ln

1

1

4

2

4

2

(4.372)

0

(4.373)
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

Hγ e

2 .ln

1

1

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
1

2

(4.374)

Hence,
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

t5

e

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
1

2

. 1

(4.375)

The magnitude of the Hubble constant “|H|” in the time domain may be derived by
numerical approximation utilising “dHdt” as follows55,
Let,
Hγ Hβ

η

(4.376)

For solutions where “H = 1 / t” (i.e. the deceleration parameter is zero),
55

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 proceeding equations.
219

www.deltagroupengineering.com

d
d 1
H
dt
dt t

1
t

2

H

2

(4.377)

56

Hence ,
d
H
dt

H

(4.378)

Therefore, “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,
Given
dH dt

H U2 R o , M G

η

1

H U2 R o , M G

η

(4.379)

Find( η )

(4.380)

Note: the utilisation of “rx5Ro” and “mg5MG” instead of “Ro” and “MG” does not significantly, nor
adversely, influence the otherwise computed value of “η”.
8.3.4 Sample calculations
Executing the algorithm to determine the value of “η” yields,
η = 4.595349

(4.381)

Evaluating “dHdt” and “dH2dt2” for various temporal ordinates produces the results,
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

4

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

. 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

2

(4.382)

56

Noting that the terminology utilised 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.
220

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

dH2 dt2 t 1 .H α

1

2
5 .µ

dH2 dt2 e

10 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 2 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

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

1

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 e

=

2

3

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH2 dt2 t 5 .H α

1

dH2 dt2 e

. 125
8.50679910

0

0

2

1

dH2 dt2 t 4 .H α

. 125
8.50679910

1

4

125

.
1.16257810

. 125
1.16257810

. 124
8.2461110

. 124
8.2461110

. 125
1.33162810

. 125
1.33162810

3

Hz

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2

1

(4.383)

where,
1

e

t1

2
5 .µ .

1

10 .µ

t2

e

2

1

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

t3 e

. 1

1

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2.206287 2.206287
4.196153 4.196153

2
3

. 1

2

= 6.205726 6.205726

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

. 1

2

(4.384)

The present values of “dHdt” and “dH2dt2” are given by the following approximations,
dH dt

dH2 dt2

H U2 R o , M G

η

= 4.726505 10

36 .

2

Hz

(4.385)

H U2 R o , M G

η
3

= 0 Hz

(4.386)

The “η” calculation algorithm may be verified against the following two determinations,
confirming the validity of the numerical approximation as follows,

=1
η

dH dt 1

221

(4.387)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

η

dH dt 1

H U2 R o , M G

dH dt

=

η

. 61
8.46094110

km

67.084257

s .Mpc

(4.388)

8.3.5 Construct errors
8.3.5.1 How can they be determined?
The computational environment utilised for the numerical determination of “η” has
limitations. Subsequently, one must consider its effect and the error associated with the introduction
of any numerical method into a construct. The error relating to the approximation of “η” and “|H|”
are resolved by graphical, analytical and numerical techniques indicating that,
i. The expression for “dH/dt” is correctly derived.
ii. The approximated value of “η” satisfies boundary conditions such that “TU2 = TU3” and is
precisely representative of the present value of CMBR temperature – hence, it is
sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications.
iii. Graphical comparison of various intermediate thermal ordinates indicates that the
approximated value of “η” is sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications.
iv. Calculation of various intermediate thermal ordinates demonstrates that “TU2 ≈ TU3” –
hence, the approximated value of “η” is sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications.
8.3.5.2 Analytical
Separating variables in the “dH/dt” expression and integrating both sides of the equation
produces “H = 1 / t”, confirming that the rate of change was correctly derived as follows,
5 .µ

H

2

. 5 .ln

H

2

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

1 dH

H

t

5 .µ

2

1
dt

.t

(4.389)
5 .µ

H

2

. 5 .ln
H

.µ 2

5 .µ

1 dH H

H

2

.ln


H

(4.390)
2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

t

5 .µ

2

ln H α .t

1
dt

.t

t

5 .µ

2

(4.391)
5 .µ

H

2

.ln


H

ln H α .t
t

5 .µ

2

(4.392)

Solving for “H” confirms that the expression for “dH/dt” is correct and no error exists.
H

1
t

(4.393)

222

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.5.3 Graphical
Graphical representations of the “TU2,3 vs. |H|” curves57 suggests common characteristics.
Thus, illustrating that “TU2 ≈ TU3” and the approximated value of “η” is sufficiently accurate for
qualitative applications.
8.3.5.4 Numerical
8.3.5.4.1 General case
A numerical comparison of results demonstrates that the approximated value of “η” satisfies
boundary conditions such that “TU2 = TU3” and is exactly representative of the present value of
CMBR temperature. Moreover, determination of various intermediate thermal ordinates
demonstrates that “TU2 ≈ TU3” such that the difference between them at “t1” is “≈ 7(%)”. This
indicates that the approximated value of “η” is sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications.
η

T U2

dH dt 1

T U3( 1 )
η

1

T U2

dH dt e

2
10 .µ

T U2

dH dt e

T U3 e
η

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH dt e

T U2

dH dt

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

1

H U2 R o , M G

0

2

. 31
3.19551810

= 3.18632310
. 31 3.03432210
. 31 ( K )

1

T U3

3

2.724751

2.724752

2

H U2 R o , M G

1

dH dt

2

2

2
2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

η

T U2

.
2.97174510

. 31 2.83254210
. 31
3.18071410

T U3 e

0
31

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

2
3

2

2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

T U3 e
η

2

5 .µ

2
10 .µ

1

2
2
15 .µ . 5 .µ

T U2

1

2
5 .µ

(4.394)

η

2
5 .µ

e

1 = 7.002696 ( % )
1

T U3 e

5 .µ

2

(4.395)

8.3.5.4.2 Specific case
For the specific case of “dHdt(Hγ) = 0”, the exact value of “η” may be determined by solving
for “Hγ” as follows,
2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

5 .µ

1

0

(4.396)

1

Hγ e

5 .µ

2

(4.397)

57

i.e. the “TU2” curve (solid line) is superimposed upon the “TU3” curve (dotted line) – refer to
graphs.
223

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Let “Hγ → t7” in the typical manner, hence:
1

t7

2
5 .µ .

e

1

(4.398)

Comparing “t7” to “t1” (i.e. the instant of maximum Cosmological temperature) yields,
t7

=1

t1

(4.399)

Therefore, utilising the relationship “Hγ = Hβη”, the value of “η” at “t7 = t1” is given by,
η

ln H γ

ln t 7 .H α

1

ln H β

ln t 1 .H α

1

1

(4.400)

However, when “t7 = t1” in terms of “Hγ” is substituted into “dHdt(Hγ)”, a result consistent
with Eq. (4.394) is produced (see below), not the correct result such that “dHdt[(t1Hα)-1] = 0” as
required by the preceding derivation.
1
2
H α .e

1

. 5 .ln
2
5 .µ

1

e

2
5 .µ

.µ 2

. 68 Hz2
1 = 7.50137510

1
5 .µ

e

2
5 .µ

2

(4.401)

The obvious question arises as to why this occurs when the “t7 = t1” result is analytically
exact. Localising the anomaly is possible by systematically simplifying the expression for “dHdt”. A
“1st” level investigation may be conducted by recognising that “dHdt(Hγ)” may be written as,
dH dt H γ

2
1 . 2
2
4 .µ . .
H α .H γ
5 ln
µ

1

(4.402)

Evaluating at “Hγ → t7 = t1” continues to produce the anomalous result as given by,
4
2.

Hα e

5.

1

5 .ln

.µ 2

. 68 Hz2
1 = 7.50137510

1

e

5 .µ

2

(4.403i)

A “2nd” level investigation produces the correct result by further simplification according to,
1

4
2.

Hα e

5.

5 .ln e

5 .µ

2

.µ 2

2

1 = 0 Hz

(4.403ii)

The cause of the anomalous result becomes apparent when replacing “µ” with “1 / 3” as follows,
1

5 .ln

. 1
3

1
5.

e

1

2

1 =0

2

3

(4.404)

8.3.6 Sample plots

See overleaf.
224

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.1 “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)

225

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.2 “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)

226

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.3 “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)

227

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.4 “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)

228

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.5 “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)

229

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.6 “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)

230

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.7 “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)

231

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.8 “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)

232

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.9 “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)

233

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.10 “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)

234

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.11 “|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)

235

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.12 “|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)

236

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.13 “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)

237

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.6.14 “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)

238

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.3.7 Concluding remarks
For most computational environment application users, it is naturally assumed that the
environment will always produce numerically valid results. However, one should be cautious in this
regard because numerical output is a direct function of the computational structure of the
environment. For example, an anomalous result became apparent when replacing “µ” with “1 / 3”
in a specific calculation.
Importantly, the same computational anomaly encountered when “dHdt = 0” does not occur
when “dH2dt2 = 0”. This suggests that the anomalous effect is a localised environmental defect – an
assertion supported by the following scaled representation of the “1st” derivative of the Hubble
constant versus Cosmological age.
The axis scaling technique nullifies potential “large number” error effects, clearly
demonstrating that at maximal resolution, the interpolated line between the final “2 of 5000” data
points – spanning an identical domain to that utilised in preceding curves, passes precisely through
the origin (i.e. at “dHdt = 0”) – in agreement with the exact analytical result.
Moreover, it is known that within the “MathCad 8 Professional” environment, the graphical
generation engine is sufficiently distinct from the user facing “work pad calculation engine”, such
that graphical results may sometimes be considered more reliable. Hence, in our case at the very
least, the graphical representations are sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications, to disregard
the computed result of “dHdt[(t1Hα)-1] ≠ 0” in favour of the agreement between the analytical proof
and the graphical evidence.
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

2.20633

2.20634

2.20635

2.20636

2.20637

2.20638

1
η
.1042
H β .H α
Scaled Cosmological Age (s)

Figure 4.50,
Therefore, the construct error relating to the approximation of “η” and “|H|” is resolved by
graphical, analytical and numerical techniques indicating that,
i. The expression for “dH/dt” is correctly derived.
ii. Numerical comparisons of results demonstrate that the approximated value of “η” satisfies
boundary conditions such that “TU2 = TU3” and is exactly representative of the present
value of CMBR temperature – hence, it is sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications.
iii. Determination of various intermediate thermal ordinates demonstrates that “TU2 ≈ TU3”
239

www.deltagroupengineering.com

such that the difference between them at “t1” is “≈ 7(%)”. This indicates that the
approximated value of “η” is sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications.
iv. Graphical representations of the “TU2,3 vs. |H|” curves [i.e. the “TU2” curve (solid line) is
superimposed upon the “TU3” curve (dotted line) – refer to graphs] suggests common
characteristics. Thus, illustrating that “TU2 ≈ TU3” and the approximated value of “η” is
sufficiently accurate for qualitative applications.
v. The graphical representations of “dH/dt, d2H/dt2 and |H|” demonstrate that the rate of the
change of the Hubble constant in the time domain is presently positive – indicating that the
Universe is “flatly” expanding.
NOTES

240

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.4

Cosmological evolution process

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
0 < t < Hα
-∞ < TU2 < 0
+∞ > |H| > Hα
0 → Hα-1
-∞ → 0
+∞ → Hα
-1
-1
Hα ≤ t < t1
0 ≤ TU2 < TU2(t1 )
Hα ≥ |H| > 0
Hα-1 → t1
0 → TU2(t1-1)
Hα → 0
-1
-1
t1 ≤ t < t4
TU2(t1 ) ≥ TU2 > TU2(t4 )
0 ≤ |H| < √|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|
t1 → t4
TU2(t1-1) → TU2(t4-1)
0 → √|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]|
-1
t4 ≤ t < AU
TU2(t4 ) ≥ TU2 ≥ TU2(HU2)
√|dHdt[(t4Hα)-1]| ≥ |H| ≥ HU2
t4 → AU
TU2(t4-1) → 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 previously 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)
H02
≈ 5.041 x103(km/s/Mpc)2
Hα-1
The instant of the “Big-Bang”: ≈ 3.646967 x10-43(s)
t1
The instant of maximum 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

241

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

NOTES

242

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.5

History of the Universe

8.5.1 According to the Standard Model (SM)
8.5.1.1 Graphical representation (i)

Figure 4.51,
243

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.5.1.2 Graphical representation (ii)

Figure 4.52,

244

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.5.1.3 Graphical representation (iii)

Figure 4.53,

245

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.5.1.4 Graphical representation (iv)

Figure 4.54,

246

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.5.2 According to EGM
Epoch or Event

Time Domain
t

Primordial epoch

Boundary Temperature Value

1

T U2 H α = 0 ( K )

1

Grand unification epoch

< t 10

34 .

10

10-34 < t(s) ≤ 10-10

Electroweak / Quark Epoch

1

T U2

(s)

10-10 < t(s) ≤ 102

28

T U2

( K)

(s)

1

T U2
10

Lepton Epoch

.
= 1.92400510

34 .

. 15 ( K )
= 3.43308810

10 .

(s)

1

. 9 ( K)
= 1.01325410

2.

10 ( s )

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 .

= 978.724031( K )

10 ( s )

1
9.

= 11.838588 ( K )

10 ( yr )

109 < t(yr) ≤ 5 x109

First Supernovae

Present Epoch

T U2

5 x109 < t(yr) ≤ 14.58 x109

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

1
1 .( s )

1
1 .( yr )
1
2.

T U2

1
3
10 .( yr )

1
4
10 .( yr )

5.

10 ( yr )
1

T U2

6.

10 ( yr )
T U2
T U2

1

T U2
T U2

. 10 1.84076810
. 3
1.2497710
. 7
2.52413210

521.528169

. 6
3.86401510

147.71262

= 1.00307810
. 6

41.823796

. 4
8.07751510

11.838588

10 ( yr )

. 4
2.29089210

3.35005

1

.
6.49496110

0.947724

7
10 .( yr )

1
8
10 .( yr )

1

T U2

10 ( yr )
T U2

1

T U2

9.

3

( K)

10
10 .( yr )

1
11
10 .( yr )

247

(4.405)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.6

EGM Cosmological construct limitations

8.6.1 Synopsis
Any complete physical model requires construct limitations to be clearly defined so as to
acknowledge the boundaries of applicability. This section determines the maximum permissible
values of Cosmological mass, size and age (i.e. “ML”, “rL” and “tL” respectively) at which the EGM
construct remains valid – expressed as,
i. MU ≤ M < ML.
ii. RU ≤ r < rL.
iii. AU ≤ t < tL.
8.6.2 Assumptions

No new assumptions are asserted.

8.6.3 Construct
8.6.3.1 The mass limit “ML”
Utilising “CΩ_J1(r,M)”, we may formulate an estimation for the maximum permissible
Cosmological mass “ML” for which the EGM construct remains valid. This is facilitated by
considering “ML” to be concentrated at the geometric centre of a spherical Universe, with an
observer at its periphery. Hence,
CΩ_J1(r1,M1) = CΩ_J1(r2,M2)
(4.406)
5

M1

5

M2

26

26

r1
M 2 M 1.

r2

r2
5 5

.

r1

(4.407)
r2
r1

(4.408)

Let, “r1 = KλRo”, “r2 = REGM”, “M1 = KmMG” and “M2 = ML” such that the maximum permissible
Cosmological mass “ML” is given by,
ML

K m.M G.

where,
R EGM

R EGM
K λ .R o

5 5

.

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)

8.6.3.2 The size limit “rL”
For a SBH of mass “ML”, the maximum permissible Cosmological size “rL” is given by,
rL

R BH M L

248

(4.411)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.6.3.3 The age limit “tL”
The maximum permissible EGM age limit of the Universe “tL” may be determined as
follows,
tL

rL
c

(4.412)

8.6.4 Boundary ratio
EGM construct boundary relationships for “ML”, “rL” and “tL” may be expressed in ratio
form as follows,
Let: “MEGM = MU” and “tEGM = AU” given by,
M EGM

t EGM

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)

Hence,
M L M EGM
rL

tL

R EGM t EGM

(4.415)

8.6.5 Sample calculations
Evaluating “ML”, “rL”, “tL” and boundary ratio’s yields,
. 71 ( kg )
M L = 4.86482110

(4.416)

.
r L = 7.6372910

(4.417)

9
10 .Lyr

19

. 19 109 .yr
t L = 7.6372910

(4.418)

ML
M EGM
rL
R EGM

. 18
5.23967510
= 5.23967510
. 18

tL

. 18
5.23967510

t EGM

(4.419)

Notably,
tL

.
= 1.86196810

6

TL

(4.420)

8.6.6 Concluding remarks
The boundaries of Cosmological mass, size and age at which the EGM construct remains
valid are given by,
i. MU ≤ M < ML.
ii. RU ≤ r < rL.
iii. AU ≤ t < tL.
249

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8.7

Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools for gravitational astronomy?

8.7.1 Synopsis
A very important question to address is the possibility of utilising conventional Radio
Telescopes (RT’s) for application to Gravitational Astronomy (GA). The practicality of this may be
determined by consideration of “CΩ_J1” expressed in terms of “ωΩ_3” such that “CΩ_J1 → CΩ_Jω”.
Subsequently, if “ωΩ_3” represents the observational Radio Frequency (RF) limit, the required RF
Flux Intensity for direct gravitational observation may be determined.
8.7.2 Assumptions

No new assumptions are asserted.

8.7.3 Construct
Substituting the expression for “ωΩ_3” into “CΩ_J1” produces “CΩ_Jω” as follows,
9

9

5

M
St J .
St J .
26
r

M

5
26

M

St G.

5

2
9

ω Ω_3

(4.421)

9
9

M

St J .

5

M

St G.

2

5

St G

5

.

ω Ω_3

26

5

M

5

2

9

ω Ω_3

(4.422)

9

St J .

M

St J .

26

26
9

26

M

5

ω Ω_3

.

26

St G

M

5

St J .ω Ω_3

9

St J .ω Ω_3

2

26 9
5 .

M

M
52

M

5

26

5
26

.St
G

5

52

M

26 9
5 .

26

5

St J .ω Ω_3

5

5

26

.St 5
G

5

9

1

.

27
5

M

26

.St 5
G

1

9

1

5
St J .ω Ω_3 .

27

M

5

26

(4.423)

4

5
4
9 .c .ω Ω
5.
5.

Ω_3 St G M
4 .π

.St 5
G

(4.424)
3
5

(4.425)

Recognising that,
26

St J .St G

45

2

9 .c .
9
St G .St G
.

4

250

26
45

9 .c .
St G
4 .π
4

4
5

(4.426)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Therefore,
5.2

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

4
9 .c . ω Ω_3
4 .π St 0.8 .M 0.6
G

(4.427)

8.7.4 Sample calculations
For illustrational purposes only, let “ωΩ_3” equal the value of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a
SMBH, such that “ωΩ_3 = ωΩ_4(1010MS)”. Although the illustrational value of “ωΩ_3” is
substantially above the RF range, it clearly demonstrates that the required RF flux intensity for
direct gravitational observation far exceeds present capability as follows,
10
10
C Ω_Jω ω Ω_4 10 .M S , 10 .M S = 180.283336( nJy )

(4.428)

where, “nJy” denotes nano-Jansky’s [i.e. “10-9(Jansky)”].
8.7.5 Concluding remarks
It is exceedingly obvious from the illustrational result that conventional RF telescopes are
not practical tools for GA. To compound the problem, the signal strength required to be detected
from an Earth base telescope, due to amplitude decay by the time it reaches the detector, makes the
problem even more difficult (i.e. “CΩ_Jω” will be many orders of magnitude less than computed
above).
In addition to signal strength detection issues, frequency decay poses another substantial
issue to be resolved. By the time the signal has reached the detector, it will be hidden amongst
background radiation as noise. Subsequently, the signal would require the appropriate filtration
(also considering the conjugate wavefunction pair nature of the signal in accordance with the EGM
construct) such that it might “somehow” be identified.
Note: the propagation characteristics of gravitational signals are discussed in the proceeding
chapter.
NOTES

251

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

252

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9 Gravitational Cosmology

Abstract
An engineering model is developed to explain how gravitational effects are transmitted
through space-time in terms of EGM wavefunction propagation and interference.

253

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1

Gravitational propagation: the mechanism for interaction

9.1.1 Synopsis
EGM is a method, not a theory, producing experimentally verified results from the
fundamental to the Cosmological scale. This chapter develops an engineering model to explain how
gravitational effects are transmitted through space-time. The intention herein is not to advance an
explanation (theory) on how gravitational transmission occurs, only to present an engineering
approach leading to observationally validated physical results as derived in the preceding chapters.
To achieve this, we are compelled to distinguish between physical theory and modelling
technique. As stated in the very first sentence, EGM is a method, a tool by which we may attempt to
conceptualise space-time manifold effects. The tool has been repeatedly tested against physical
observation in order to ensure that, at the very least; the method itself is robust and consistent.
One of the most fundamental questions in Physics is the phenomenon of gravity and its
propagation. The standard view of this was advanced by Einstein involving the geometry of spacetime curvature. His approach has been highly successful in describing and predicting many
astronomical situations and has been rigorously tested by the scientific community.
Commonly in engineering solutions, one is not required to understand the physical nature of
a specific phenomenon in great detail. Very often, the observed behaviour of a system is modelled
in a non-physical way, permitting and facilitating the manipulation and prediction of desired effects
for commercial gain. For example, the technique of “discontinuity functions” is often applied to
beam loading configurations to avoid the loss of life or property through structural failure.
This particular approach to stress analysis is such that physical loads (uniformly distributed
and point alike) are represented as discontinuous functions along the beam. The reason for this is
because no single equation can model deflections along a beam continuously (other than the
simplest situations). Each time the loading situation changes, so does the mathematical equation
describing the deflection of the beam. Subsequently, the analysis is “broken-up” into a set of
manageable stress sections. From this, one obtains shear force and bending moment diagrams and is
able to determine permissible loading boundaries and beam deflections.
The significance of the above is that it emphasises the fact that the structural member (the
beam in the example given) is modelled and analysed in a manner which is vastly distant from what
is physically real. In this case, the engineer is seeking to predict an effect and quantify safe working
loads, not necessarily model the Physics of what is happening within the beam in great detail. For a
far more detailed analysis, an engineer requires finite difference or element methods.
The point of the beam example is to help the reader understand that only the result of a
mathematical modelling method is required to agree with physical observation. The technique
applied to derive the physically verified result is not necessarily important. Only if the logically
derived result disagrees with observation does the mathematical modelled utilised become
questionable. If it agrees with physical observation, particularly on a broad scale of application, it
defies logic to disregard it in favour of that which cannot achieve comparable results.
A second example of a mathematical description being potentially dissimilar to physical
reality is an EM wave. The true nature of an EM wave is unknown to contemporary Physics, yet it
is considered by many, to be exactly as it appears mathematically (i.e. a sinusoid). However, one
should be very careful to draw the distinction between “what physically is” and the tool utilised to
describe observed effects and behaviour. Hence, we shall demonstrate that basic engineering
Control Theory is a useful tool by which to develop a gravitational propagation model, consistent
with the Cosmological results obtained in the preceding chapters.
Note: two propagation models are presented herein (i.e. broadband and narrowband), with the key
characteristics of the broadband model preserved in the narrowband approximation.

254

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.2 Construct
9.1.2.1 Broadband
The propagation of EGM waves may be represented by two distinct models (i.e. broadband
and narrowband). The broadband propagation model refers to the entire PV spectrum surrounding
an object, whilst the narrowband propagation model refers to the same spectrum, but usefully
approximated to a single wavefunction at a frequency of “ωΩ”. Since the narrowband model is an
analogous representation of the broadband model, key characteristics of the broadband model are
required to be preserved in the narrowband analogy.
In was demonstrated in [5] that, in the case of broadband propagation, the group velocity of
a large number of superimposed wavefunctions is zero. However, if one could filter-out all EGM
wavefunctions except a specific frequency, an EM signal would be detected. The next important
issue to reconcile against the “zero group velocity” behaviour of broadband propagation is how
narrowband propagation might work such that it remains consistent with broadband characteristics.
A single wavefunction representation of a broadband PV spectrum implies that the evidence
of propagation of high frequency gravitational waves from celestial bodies should be clear and
obvious – contradicting physical observation. Hence, it shall be demonstrated in the proceeding
section that broadband characteristics are preserved in the analogous narrowband approximation by:
i. The utilisation of Control System principles to describe EGM wavefunction propagation
and space-time curvature in terms of a control loop.
ii. Simplifying the constitution of a Graviton to be: a Photon coupled to its ZPF (space-time
manifold) response, representing the conjugate EGM wavefunction associated with a
Photon pair. Subsequently, the narrowband approximation propagates with characteristics
preserving the broadband group velocity condition.
iii. Recognising that the conjugate EGM wavefunction associated with a Photon pair (i.e. the
ZPF response) may be considered, for practical solution purposes, to be a “Virtual
Photon” (VP) popping into existence as a result of the ZPF response to EGM stress.
9.1.2.2 Narrowband
EGM considers all masses to be radiators of conjugate wavefunction pairs. That is to say, all
mass radiates a spectrum of wavefunctions at frequencies according to “ωPV(1,r,M) ≤ ω ≤
ωΩ(r,M)”: both being dependent upon the objects mass-energy distribution over space-time. At each
frequency in the spectrum, wavefunctions are being radiated with positive and negative amplitudes
of equal magnitude. This is at the heart of a Fourier representation of any constant function in
complex form.
Hence, each positive amplitude wavefunction is coupled to its negative amplitude
counterpart. If we assume that Electricity, Magnetism and Gravity are unified, then EGM
propagation may be graphically represented as follows,

Figure 3.14,
255

www.deltagroupengineering.com

where, the Electric Field Wave is at right angles (orthogonal58) to the Magnetic Field Wave, and the
Electro-Gravitic Coupling Wave is at right angles (orthogonal) to the Magneto-Gravitic Coupling
Wave. The arrow denotes the orientation of the associated Poynting Vector (i.e. the propagation of
energy).
A very big and obvious question is “what is the nature of the Gravitic coupling waves?”
Simply put, the Gravitic coupling waves are the responses of the space-time manifold to the work
being done to it by the Electric and Magnetic Field Waves, consistent with “Newton’s 1st Law of
motion” (i.e. for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction).
Explaining EGM propagation may be reduced in complexity by initially considering only
the contribution of the Electric Field Wave. That is, we may consider the Electric and Magnetic
Field Waves as being independent of each other. As will be shown graphically, the Magnetic Field
Wave may then be considered and the “explanation process” repeated.
To facilitate this, let “M” denote the mass of an object radiating an Electric Field Wave in
accordance with the EGM construct (i.e. not generated in the classical EM wave production
manner). This characteristic is conceptualised diagrammatically by the function “G(s)”, existing in
the Laplace Domain (i.e. the classical form of representation in Control System Engineering59).
Subsequently, “H(s)” denotes the response of the space-time manifold to the Electric Field Wave
(i.e. the Electro-Gravitic Coupling Wave).

Figure 4.55: control system representing EGM propagation (illustrational only),
Mathematically, this means that “G(s) = -H(s)”, or in other words, the response of the spacetime manifold is equal and opposite of the work being done to it by the Electric Field Wave.
Diagrammatically, “G(s) = H(s)” but note that it feeds into the summing junction illustrated as a
negative input, producing “G(s) = -H(s)” mathematically. Graphing forcing function and space-time
manifold response [i.e. “G(s)” and “H(s)” respectively], for each EM component separately, yields
the following two illustrations,

Electric Field

EGM Propagation (Electric Component)

Time

Electric Field Wave (Forcing Function)
Space-Time Manifold Electric Response

Figure 4.56: Electric forcing function “G(s)” and its space-time manifold response “H(s)”,
58

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_systems; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_engineering;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_Function
59

256

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Magnetic Field

EGM Propagation (Magnetic Component)

Time

Magnetic Field Wave (Forcing Function)
Space-Time Manifold Magnetic Response

Figure 4.57: Magnetic forcing function “G(s)” and its space-time manifold response “H(s)”,
The function “E(s)”, in both cases, represents signal degradation (in the Laplace domain)
over distance (in the direction of propagation). A complete and thorough control systems
engineering analysis60 utilising Transfer Functions, Characteristic Equations, Root Locus, Nyquist
Stability, Bode Plots and Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) Controllers etc., is beyond the
scope of this text and has been omitted for brevity.
9.1.3 Testing
9.1.3.1 Newtonian
It is extremely important to test the analogous narrowband approximation against well
established classical and contemporary gravitational models. The testing to be conducted is not
intended to replace any widely accepted model, but rather to ensure that key aspects of mainstream
Physics are qualitatively contained within the narrowband approximation.
Immediately, one can see that the Electric and Magnetic Field Waves mathematically
“cancel-out” with respect to their conjugate space-time manifold responses, producing a constant
mathematical result of zero force (i.e. action equals reaction), at right angles to the direction of the
Poynting Vector61. In terms of EM propagation, the Poynting Vector travels the path of least
resistance through the space-time manifold.
Hence, key Newtonian aspects are qualitatively (in principle) satisfied by the action-reaction force
pairing in the analogous narrowband approximation.
9.1.3.2 Relativistic
From a General Relativity (GR) perspective, energy has been deposited into the region by
the EM Field Wave and the space-time manifold reacts via the physical manifestation of “spacetime curvature”. The analogous narrowband approximation regards the ZPF as an “infinite store” of
available reactive space-time manifold “bending” stress as an EM wave propagates through it.
Hence, key aspects of GR are qualitatively (in principle) satisfied by the deposition of energy
manifesting as space-time curvature (i.e. “bending” stress) in the analogous narrowband
approximation.

60

Suggest reading: Linear Control System Analysis and Design, John J. D’Azzo and Constantine
Houpis, Third Edition, 1988, McGraw-Hill.
61
The direction of energy flow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_Vector.
257

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.1.3.3 PV
Gravitational acceleration is proportional to the cubic frequency of the PV spectrum62, of the
specific mass being considered. As the EM signal degrades, the Poynting Vector diminishes. EGM
considers Gravity to be a direct result of the gradient of the Energy Density (realised by the
Poynting Vector). The EM field deposits energy into a region, but without a gradient over distance,
there would be no change in Energy Density, no change in Poynting Vector and “no Gravity”.
Since the Energy Density of the gravitational field surrounding an object is less, farther
away from the objects centre of mass than closer to it, the change in Energy Density always acts
toward the centre of mass of the object. That is why Gravity always acts downward because the
change in Energy Density is always negative.
The Electro-Gravitic and Magneto-Gravitic Coupling Waves may each be described as
populations of Virtual Photons (VP’s), “popping” into existence from the Zero-Point Vacuum as it
seeks a lower state of potential energy in response to work being done to it. That is, in response to it
being “bent” by the input of energy, in the case of EGM, a propagating EM wave. In other words,
one may consider the ZPF as being an energy sink which is always full. It seeks equilibrium with
the applied EM forcing function by “curving” the space-time manifold, thereby producing an EGM
wave.
Hence, key aspects of the PV model are satisfied by the analogous narrowband approximation.
9.1.4 Concluding remarks
The analogous narrowband approximation may be summarised as follows:
i. The constitution of a Graviton is simplified to be: a Photon coupled to its ZPF (space-time
manifold) response, representing the conjugate EGM wavefunction associated with a
Photon pair. Subsequently, the narrowband approximation propagates with characteristics
preserving the broadband group velocity condition such that an EGM Wave may be
described as an EM Wave coupled to its ZPF (space-time manifold) response.
ii. Gravity propagates as EGM Waves with EM characteristics, but remains undetectable
unless the ZPF response can be appropriately filtered-out by “a” detector.
iii. The conjugate EGM wavefunction associated with a Photon pair (i.e. the ZPF response)
may be considered, for practical solution purposes, to be a “Virtual Photon” (VP) popping
into existence as a result of the ZPF response to EGM stress, such that the ZPF acts as an
infinite store of available reactive space-time manifold “bending” stress as an EM wave
propagates through it.
iv. The response of the ZPF to an applied forcing function is reactionary (consistent with
Newtons “1st” Law of Motion) and equivalent (in principle) to “space-time manifold
curvature”.
v. The mechanism of the ZPF response may be usefully described by VP’s, propagating
“180°-out-of-phase” with respect to an EM forcing function.
vi. The EGM Wave may be categorised into two key couplings. That is, the Electric Field
Wave couples to its Electro-Gravitic conjugate, whilst the Magnetic Field Wave couples
to its Magneto-Gravitic conjugate.
vii. The gravitational effect arises from the degradation of the EM Wave Poynting Vector over
distance (change in Energy Density) associated with EGM propagation.
Note: the wavefunction describing each population of Photon pairs (i.e. a population of Photons
and their ZPF response) may be considered to be representative of either side of a Fourier
distribution in Complex form, symmetrical about the “0th” mode.
62

A bandwidth of the EGM spectrum.
258

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.2

Gravitational interference: the mechanism of interaction

9.2.1 Synopsis
The gravitational interaction between two bodies may be represented by the EGM construct
as (i), a broadband interference pattern or (ii), a narrowband interference pattern such that the entire
PV spectrum surrounding each mass is usefully approximated by a single wavefunction at “ωΩ”.
We shall illustrate both of these situations by graphical example.
Consider the location of zero net acceleration [0(m/s2) - termed the buoyancy point] between
the Earth and the Moon with the lunar orbit usefully approximated as being circular. Let, “DE2M”,
“r4” and “r5” denote the mean distance from the Earth to the Moon, the mean distance from the
centre of mass of the Earth to the buoyancy point and the mean distance from the centre of mass of
the Moon to the buoyancy point respectively such that:
r4

r 5 D E2M

r5

(4.429)

D E2M

r4

(4.430)

Hence, when accelerations are balanced:
G.M E G.M M
2

2

r4

r5

(4.431)

Solving for “r4” yields,
r4

D E2M. M M .M E
MM

M M .M E

(4.432)

Evaluating produces,
r4
r5

=

. 5
3.46028110
. 4
3.83719110

( km)

(4.433)

Calculating “g” at “r4” and “r5” yields,
g r 4, M E
g r 5, M M

=

. 3
3.33165310

m

. 3
3.33165310

s

2

(4.434)

where, the resultant acceleration is given by,
g r 4, M E

g r 5, M M = 0

m
s

2

(4.435)

9.2.2 Construct
9.2.2.1 Broadband
The broadband interference pattern of the buoyancy point between the Earth and the Moon
may be formulated by graphing the harmonics of gravitational acceleration “aPV”. Summing the first
“21” modes only (i.e. “nPV = 21”), an approximation of the resultant interference pattern may be
represented (illustrational only) utilising the EGM construct as follows,
a PV( r , M , t )

i .

C PV n PV, r , M .e

n PV

π .n PV .ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .t .i

(4.436)

where, “CPV” and “nPVωPV(1,r,M)” represent the gravitational amplitude and frequency spectra
respectively – mindful that in physical reality, “|nPV| → ∞”.
259

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)

Figure 4.58,
The graph above only includes the first “21” harmonics. A complete representation would
involve summing all modes (i.e. “> 1029” wavefunctions for each celestial object). Subsequently,
complete graphical representation at the zero “g” position [“aPV(r4,ME,t)” and “aPV(r5,MM,t)”
respectively: producing a resultant acceleration of zero “aPV(r4,ME,t) - aPV(r5,MM,t)”], will appear as
flat lines. The resultant magnitude of acceleration curve “aPV(r4,ME,t) - aPV(r5,MM,t)” will run along
the x-axis with a value of zero.
9.2.2.2 Narrowband
The narrowband representation is formed by usefully approximating the PV spectrum of the
gravitational field, as a single wavefunction at “ωΩ”. Firstly, we shall validate that the EGM method
produces the correct result with negligible error as follows,
a EGM_ωΩ r 4 , M E
a EGM_ωΩ r 5 , M M

=

.
3.33165310

3

.
3.33165310

3

m
s

2

(4.437)

where, the resultant acceleration is given by,
a EGM_ωΩ r 4 , M E

a EGM_ωΩ r 5 , M M = 0

m
s

2

(4.438)

Graphing the high frequency harmonic accelerations “ag” of the gravitational interaction of
the Earth and the Moon at the buoyancy point (illustrational only), based solely upon “ωΩ” [i.e.
“ωΩ(r4,ME)” and “ωΩ(r5,MM)”], produces a visualisation of beats utilising a generalised form
according to,
a g ( r , M , φ, t )

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

φ

(4.439)

At “φ = 0”, the average acceleration is given by “gav”,

g av ( r , M )

2
T Ω ( r, M )

1.
T Ω ( r, M )
2
.
0 .( s )

260

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

(4.440)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

Evaluating yields the correct result as demonstrated by,
g av R E, M E = 9.809009

m
s

2

(4.441)

such that:
ω Ω r 4 , M E = 56.499573 ( YHz)

(4.442)

ω Ω r 5 , M M = 72.138509( YHz)

(4.443)

and,
Hence, the conjugate wavefunction acceleration pairs may be illustrated as follows,
Conjugate WaveFunction Acc. Pairs

Acceleration

a g r 4, M E, 0, t
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

Figure 4.59,
The Moon’s EGM narrowband wavefunction approximation contribution is phase-shifted
“180°” (polarized) relative to the Earth because it approaches the zero “g” position from the
opposite direction. This is inconsequential because “aPV” is equal to the time averaged magnitude of
the curves above.

Acceleration

Conjugate WaveFunction Acc. Beats

a g r 4, M E, φ , t
a g r 4, M E, φ , t

a g r 5, M M, π , t
a g r 5, M M, π , t

t
Time

+ve WaveFunction Interference Beat
-ve WaveFunction Interference Beat (Conjugate)

Figure 4.60,

261

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Note: for narrowband representations of non-zero acceleration, one may apply either of two
techniques to the approximation,
i. Disregard the conjugate wavefunction or,
ii. Apply an appropriately adjusted magnitude constraint.
9.2.3 Concluding remarks
9.2.3.1 Broadband
EGM interference patterns form when two or more gravitational fields interact. EGM
considers all masses to be radiators of conjugate wavefunction pairs. That is to say, all mass
radiates a spectrum of wavefunctions at frequencies according to “ωPV(1,r,M) ≤ ω ≤ ωΩ(r,M)”. Each
positive amplitude wavefunction is coupled to its negative amplitude counterpart. The total
gravitational influence of the wavefunction pair is characterised by the sum of the magnitudes.
Gravitational interaction between two bodies may be written mathematically in the time domain as
an interference pattern such that “nPV” has the odd number harmonic distribution from “-nΩ(r,M)”
to “+nΩ(r,M)” as follows,
n PV

n Ω ( r, M ) , 2

n Ω ( r , M ) .. n Ω ( r , M )

(4.444)

The magnitude of “nΩ(r,M)” is extremely important in EGM as it defines the breadth of the
double sided EGM spectrum. Without a sufficiently large magnitude of “nΩ(r,M)”, a measurably
constant function is not possible. In other words, if “nΩ(r,M)” is too low, then EGM would imply
that gravity varies with time (noticeably) at the surface of the Earth and we would all be able to feel
this behaviour on our bodies.
Therefore, “nΩ(r,M)” is required to be sufficiently large such that “aPV” produces a “flatlined” graph, consistent with human experience of “g” at the surface of the Earth. Fortunately, the
EGM method produces extremely large values of “nΩ(r,M)” for all masses, even at the fundamental
particle level. Typically, real world values of “1014 to +∞”, depending on the mass being
considered. It should be noted that “acceptably constant” graphical behaviour can be observed with
values of “nΩ(r,M)” as low as several hundred.
The value of “nΩ(r,M)”, as determined by the EGM method, is intimately tied to the massenergy distribution of the object under consideration. For example, the value of “nΩ(r,M)” for free
space (zero gravity) is “+∞”. This decreases as the energy density of the space-time manifold
increases. In other words, as mass is added to the space-time manifold, the value of “nΩ(r,M)”
decreases acting to compresses the local PV spectrum.
Note: gravitational interference patterns form due to broadband propagation of EGM
wavefunctions at a group velocity of zero.
9.2.3.2 Narrowband
A narrowband interference pattern may be produced by approximating the entire PV
spectrum surrounding each mass as a single wavefunction, existing as a population of conjugate
Photon pairs. Where, one population of Photons propagate with positive amplitude, coupled to a
population of Virtual Photons propagating with negative amplitude, such that each population of
pairs is polarized “180°” apart (i.e. a pair existing as equal and opposite forms)63.
Note: the broadband group velocity condition is preserved in the narrowband approximation.

63

Refer to previous section for an expanded description.
262

www.deltagroupengineering.com

10 Particle Cosmology

Abstract
The following characteristics are derived utilising EGM principles:
i. The Photon and Graviton mass-energies lower limit.
ii. The Photon and Graviton Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge radii lower limit.
iii. The Photon charge threshold.
iv. The Photon charge upper limit.
v. The Photon charge lower limit.

263

www.deltagroupengineering.com

10.1 Derivation of the Photon and Graviton mass-energies lower limit
The lower limit of the Photon and Graviton mass-energies (“mγγ2” and “mgg2” respectively)
may be determined trivially by equating “tL” to “TL” as follows,
Let, “TL → tL” such that:
tL

h
m γγ

(4.445)

Therefore: if “mγγ → mγγ2” then,
m γγ2

h
tL

(4.446)

2 .m γγ2

(4.447)

m gg2

Evaluating yields,
m γγ2

1.715978

=

m gg2

10

3.431956

51 .

eV

(4.448)

Hence,
m γγ2 < m m γγ

(4.449)

m gg2 < m m gg

(4.450)

10.2 Derivation of the Photon and Graviton RMS charge radii lower limit
The lower limit of the Photon and Graviton Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge radii (“rγγ2”
and “rgg2” respectively) may be determined utilising “mγγ2” and the radii relationships derived in
[10] as follows,
5

r γγ2

r e.

m γγ2
m e .c

2

2

(4.451)

where, “re” and “me” denote the classical Electron radius and rest mass respectively. Thus,
r gg2

5

4 .r γγ2

(4.452)

Evaluating yields,
r γγ2
r gg2

=

7.250508
9.567103

10

38 .

m

(4.453)

Hence,
r γγ2 < r r γγ

(4.454)

r gg2 < r r gg

(4.455)

10.3 Derivation of the Photon charge threshold
The Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge threshold of a free Photon “Qγ” may be derived in a
similar manner to the mass-energy threshold in [8]. Utilising a generalised form for the energy of a
Photon “EΩ” [10] propagating at “ωΩ”, “Qγ” may be derived in highly favourable agreement with
the PDG estimate [49] as follows,
E Ω ( r, M )

h .ω Ω ( r , M )

264

(4.456)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

Subsequently, the Photon population at the charge threshold is given by “Nγ”,
E Ω ( r, M )

N γ( r, M )

(4.457)

where, “mγ” denotes the mass-energy threshold. Hence, “Qγ” is given by,
Qe

Q γ( r, M )

N γ( r, M )

(4.458)
where, “Qe” denotes the Electric charge.
Let: “r → rε” and “m → me” such that “Qγ(rε,me) → Qγ” where “rε” denotes the RMS charge
radius of the Electron as determined in [9]. Hence, “Qγ” may be evaluated according to,

= 2.655018 10

30

Qe

(4.459)

30
Q γ < 2.7.10 .Q e

(4.460)

Therefore,

Comparing “Qγ” to the PDG value (i.e. “Qγ_PDG = 5 x10-30Qe”) produces a highly favourable result
as follows,
Q γ_PDG

= 1.883226

(4.461)

10.4 Derivation of the Photon charge upper limit
The upper limit of the RMS charge of a free Photon “Qγγ” may be derived trivially by
considering the value of the charge threshold in proportion to the Photon population as follows,
Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ( r , M )

N γ( r, M )

(4.462)

Subsequently it follows that,
Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ ( r , M )

2

Qe

(4.463)

Let: “r → rε” and “m → me” such that “Qγ(rε,me) → Qγ” according to,
Q γγ

2

Qe

(4.464)

Evaluating yields,
Q γγ = 1.129394 10
Q γγ

= 7.049122 10

78 .

C

(4.465)

60

Qe

(4.466)

Therefore,
Q γγ 7.05. 10

265

60

.Q
e

(4.467)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

10.5 Derivation of the Photon charge lower limit
The lower limit of the RMS charge of a free Photon “Qγγ2” may be derived trivially by
recognising that the Cosmological age, Photon mass-energy and Photon RMS charge limit ratios are
equal as follows,
tL

m γγ

Q γγ

T L m γγ2 Q γγ2
m γγ

(4.468)

.
= 1.86196810

6

m γγ2

(4.469)

Hence,
Q γγ

Q γγ2

m γγ

.m
γγ2

(4.470)

Evaluating yields,
Q γγ2 = 6.065593 10
Q γγ2

85 .

= 3.785846 10

C

(4.471)

66

Qe

Therefore,

(4.472)

Q γγ2 .Q e < Q Q γγ .Q e

(4.473)

10.6 Other useful relationships
i. Relationship:

2

E Ω r ε,me

ω Ω r e, m e
.m
γγ
ω Ω r ε, m e

(4.474)

Verification,

2

E Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r e, m e
.m
γγ
ω Ω r ε, m e

=

1.525768
1.525768

10

46 .

eV

(4.475)

ii. Relationship:
E Ω r e, m e

2

m γγ

(4.476)

Verification,
E Ω r e, m e

2

=

0.165603
0.165603

m γγ

( µJ )

(4.477)

iii. Relationship:
ω Ω r e, m e

266

2

h .m γγ

(4.478)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Verification,
ω Ω r e,m e

2

=

h .m γγ

249.926816
249.926816

( YHz)

(4.479)

iv. Relationship:
Qe
me
2.

=

c Q γγ

. 11
1.7588210

C

198.286288

kg

m γγ

(4.480)

NOTES

267

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

268

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11 Equation Summary
The following is an itemised account of the key relationships derived herein:
11.1 Gravitation
11.1.1 “Stg”
6
3
3 .ω h

St g

13 2
2 .π .c

(4.23)

11.1.2 “ωΩ_2”
ω Ω_2( r , M )

9

St g
r

.g ( r , M ) 2

(4.25)

11.1.3 “aEGM_ωΩ”
r .
9
ω Ω_2( r , M )
St g

a EGM_ωΩ( r , M )

(4.26)

11.1.4 “StG”
3.

St G

2

3 .ω h

9

. c
2

4 .π .h

(4.35)

11.1.5 “ωΩ_3”
9

2

M
St G.
5
r

ω Ω_3( r , M )

(4.36)

11.1.6 “λΩ_3”
λΩ_3 = c / ωΩ_3
11.1.7 “G”
St G

G

St g

(4.37)

11.1.8 “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)

11.1.9 “StJ”
9 .c .
St G
4 .π
4

St J

2
9

(4.51)

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

St J
2

r

9

. M

5

8

r

(4.52)
5.2

C Ω_Jω ω Ω_3 , M

269

4
9 .c . ω Ω_3
4 .π St 0.8 .M 0.6
G

(4.427)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.1.11 “nΩ_2”
.
3
3 .π m h . r
16 M
λh
2

9

n Ω_2( r , M )

7

(4.60)

11.1.12 “KDepp”
1

K Depp ( r , M )

2 .G.M

1

11.1.13 “KPV”

K PV( r , M )

r .c

2

(4.106)

K Depp ( r , M )

2

K Depp ( r , M )

K PV( r , M )

(4.110)

11.1.14 “TL”
TL

h
m γγ

(4.196)

11.1.15 “ωg”
M .c
2 .h

ω g( M )

11.1.16 “ngg”

2

(4.207)

n gg ( M ) T L.ω g ( M )

(4.208)

11.1.17 “rω”
5

St G.

r ω ω Ω_3 , M

M

2

ω Ω_3

9

(4.212)

11.1.18 “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)

11.1.19 “ag”
a g ( r , M , φ, t )

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

φ

(4.439)

11.1.20 “gav”
g av ( r , M )

2

1.
T Ω ( r, M )
2
.

T Ω ( r, M )

0 .( s )

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

(4.440)

11.2 Planck-Particles
11.2.1 “mx”
mx

λx
2

(4.71)

11.2.2 “λx”
λx

4 . 2
π 3

6

270

(4.72)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

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

(4.78)

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

(4.245)

M3 = mxmh = λxmh / 2

(4.246)

11.3 SBH’s
11.3.1 “StBH”
c .St G

9

St BH

c.

( 2 .G)

5

(4.138)

11.3.2 “ωΩ_4”
3

St BH.

ω Ω_4 M BH

1
M BH

(4.139)

11.3.3 “rS”
3

2
λ x.λ h .R BH

r S R BH

3

r S M BH
3

r S R BH

(4.146)

3 .M BH
4 .π .ρ S

(4.148)

2
3 .c .R BH
8 .π .G.ρ S

(4.150)

11.3.4 “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)

11.3.5 “nΩ_5”
11.3.6 “nBH”
n BH M BH

n Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

(4.159)

11.3.7 “ωΩ_5”
ω Ω_5 M BH

ω Ω_3 r S M BH , M BH

(4.161)

11.3.8 “ωBH”
ω BH M BH

ω Ω_5 M BH
ω Ω_4 M BH

(4.162)

11.3.9 “ωΩ_6”
ω Ω_6 M BH

ω Ω_5 M BH
n Ω_4 M BH

(4.166)

11.3.10 “ωΩ_7”
ω Ω_7 M BH

271

ω Ω_4 M BH
n Ω_5 M BH

(4.167)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.3.11 “ωPV_1”
ω Ω_6 M BH

ω PV_1 M BH

ω Ω_7 M BH

(4.168)

11.3.12 “ng”
n g ω , M BH

E M BH
E g( ω )

(4.177)

11.4 Cosmology
11.4.1 “r2, M2”
r2(r) = Kλ⋅r

(4.247)

M2(M) = Km⋅M = Kλ⋅M

(4.248)

11.4.2 “λy”
1

λ y r 2, M 2

ln n Ω_2 r 2 , M 2

(4.229)

11.4.3 “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)

11.4.4 “AU”
A U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

11.4.5 “RU”

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

5

(4.233)

R U r 2, r 3 , M 2, M 3

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

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

1

(4.234)

11.4.6 “HU, HU2, HU5, |H|”

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 .

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

d
H
dt

2
7 .µ

5

.

mh
M

5 .µ

2

. r
λh

2
26 .µ

(4.529)

(4.378)

11.4.7 “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
272

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ωh

H α λ x.λ h , m x.m h

λx

(4.249)

11.4.8 “ρU, ρU2”
3 .H U r 2 , r 3 , M 2 , M 3

ρ U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

8 .π .G
3 .H U2( r , M )

ρ U2( r , M )

11.4.9 “MU”
M U r 2, r 3, M 2, M 3

2

(4.238)

2

8 .π .G

(4.304)

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

(4.239)

11.4.10 “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)

11.4.11 “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)

11.4.12 “StT”
9

4. 3. 1 . λ x
3 4 c5 π .λ 2
h
3

St T

2

(4.274)

11.4.13 “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

λ x.H

K W .St T .ln

1

. H5

(4.275)
. H .H
β α

KW
c

µ

.ln

.
. 4µ
H U5( r , M ) λ h

273

2 .µ

.

5 .µ

2

(4.318)

1
T U4( t ) K W .St T .ln H α .t .
t

T U5( r , M )

(4.242)

5 .µ

1
π .H α

2

(4.331)
2 .µ

2

. 2

.H ( r , M ) 5 µ
U5

(4.530)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.4.14 “dTdt, dT2dt2, dT3dt3”
K W .St T .

dT dt ( t )

2
5 .ln H α .t .µ

t

dT2 dt2 ( t )

K W .St T .

dT3 dt3 ( t )

.t

(4.335)

2
2
5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ

t
K W .St T .

2

5 .µ

5 .µ

2

1

2

1

.t2

2
2
2
5 .µ .ln H α .t . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

t

1

(4.339)

3
5 .µ

2

2
2
15.µ . 5 .µ

2
.t3

2

2

(4.343)

11.4.15 “dHdt, dH2dt2”
1

t

H γ .H α

Hγ Hβ

dH dt H γ

dH2 dt2 H γ

(4.359)

η

(4.376)

2
H α .H γ
. 5 .ln 1 .µ 2
2

5 .µ

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)

11.4.16 “t1, t2, t3, t4, t5”
1

t1

e

2
5 .µ .

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

274

(4.366)

2
1

2

. 1

(4.375)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.5 ZPF
11.5.1 “ΩEGM”
Ω EGM

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

1.013403

=

m g5

(4.308)

1.052361

(4.298)

11.5.2 “ΩZPF”
Ω ZPF

Ω EGM

1

(4.313)

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

U ZPF

2

(4.315)

11.6 EGM Construct limits
11.6.1 “ML”
ML

K m.M G.

R EGM

5 5

R EGM

.

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)

11.6.2 “rL”
rL

R BH M L

(4.411)

11.6.3 “tL”
rL

tL

c

(4.412)

11.6.4 “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)

11.7 Particle-Physics
11.7.1 “mγγ2”
m γγ2

11.7.2 “mgg2”
m gg2

h
tL

(4.446)

2 .m γγ2

(4.447)

11.7.3 “rγγ2”
5

r γγ2

r e.

m γγ2
m e .c

275

2

2

(4.451)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.7.4 “rgg2”
r gg2

11.7.5 “Nγ”

5

4 .r γγ2

(4.452)

E Ω ( r, M )

N γ( r, M )

(4.457)

11.7.6 “Qγ”
Qe

Q γ( r, M )

N γ( r, M )

(4.458)

11.7.7 “Qγγ”
Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ( r , M )

N γ( r, M )
Q γ( r, M )

Q γγ ( r , M )

Q γγ

(4.462)

2

Qe

(4.463)

2

Qe

(4.464)

11.7.8 “Qγγ2”
Q γγ2

Q γγ
m γγ

.m
γγ2

(4.470)

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

m γγ

Q γγ

T L m γγ2 Q γγ2

(4.468)

11.8 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

276

(4.474)

2

m γγ

(4.476)
2

h .m γγ

(4.478)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11.9 Quick symbol guide
Symbol
aEGM_ωΩ
ωΩ
ag
aPV
AU
CΩ_J1
CΩ_Jωω
dH2dt2
dHdt
dT2dt2
dT3dt3
dTdt
gav
H
H0
HU
HU2
HU5



KDepp
KT
KU
KW
M1
M2
M3
MBH
MEGM
mg5
mgg2
ML
MU
mx
mγγ2
γγ
nBH
ng
ngg
nΩ_2
nΩ_4
nΩ_5


Qγγ
Qγγ2
γγ
r1

Description
Gravitational acceleration utilising ωΩ_2
High frequency harmonic acceleration
Gravitational acceleration harmonic
EGM Cosmological age (present value)
Non-refractive form of CΩ_J
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
Average high frequency harmonic acceleration
Generalised reference to the Hubble constant
Hubble constant (present value)
EGM Hubble constant
Transformed representation of HU
Simplest functionally dependent form of HU
Primordial Hubble constant
Dimensionless range variable
Dimensionless range variable
Refractive Index of PV by Depp
Expansive scaling factor
rf / ri
Wien displacement constant: 2.8977685 x10-3 [35]
Generalised mass
Generalised mass
Generalised mass or mh
Mass of a SBH
Convenient form of MU
Computational pre-factor
Graviton mass-energy lower limit
EGM Cosmological mass limit
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
Transformed representation of nΩ_1
nΩ_1 at the periphery of a SBH singularity
nΩ_1 at the event horizon of a SBH
Photon population at Qγ
Photon RMS charge threshold by EGM
Photon RMS charge upper limit by EGM
Photon RMS charge lower limit by EGM
Generalised radial displacement
277

Units
m/s2

s
Jy (Jansky)
Hz3
Hz2
K/s2
K/s3
K/s
m/s2
Hz

mK
kg

eV
kg

eV

C

m

www.deltagroupengineering.com

r2
r3
RBH
REGM
rgg2
rL
Ro
rS
RU
rx5
rγγ2
γγ

Stg
StG
StJ
T0
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
tEGM
TL
tL
TU
TU2
TU3
TU4
TU5
TW
UZPF
ΩEGM
ΩZPF
η
λx
λy
λΩ_3
µ
ρm
ρS
ρU
ρU2
ωBH
ωg
ωPV_1

Generalised radial displacement
m
Generalised radial displacement or λh
Radius of the event horizon of a SBH
Convenient form of RU
Graviton RMS charge radius lower limit
EGM Cosmological size limit
Distance from the Sun to the Galactic centre
pc (parsec)
Singularity radius
m
EGM Cosmological size (present value)
Computational pre-factor
Photon RMS charge radius lower limit
m
Distance from the centre of mass of a celestial object to the Earth
1st EGM gravitational constant: Stg = 1.828935 x10245
m-1s-5
nd
224
2 EGM gravitational constant: StG = 8.146982 x10
m5kg-2s-9
3rd EGM gravitational constant: StJ9 = 1.093567 x10-146(kg4m26/s18)
(kg4m26/s18)(1/9)
CMBR temperature (present value)
K
s
• 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
Convenient form of AU
Minimum gravitational lifetime of matter
EGM Cosmological age limit
CMBR temperature by the EGM method
K
Transformed representation of TU
Transformed representation of TU2
Transformed representation of TU3
Simplest functionally dependent form of TU
Thermodynamic scaling factor
ZPF energy density threshold
Pa
Net Cosmological density parameter as defined by the EGM method
ZPE contribution to the net Cosmological density parameter
Computed index
1st SPBH constant
Generalised representation of λx
m
c / ωΩ_3
Indicial constant (µ = 1 / 3)
Mass density
kg/m3
Mass density of a SPBH
EGM Cosmological mass-density
Transformed representation of ρU
Harmonic cut-off frequency ratio (ωΩ_5 : ωΩ_4)
Average Graviton emission frequency (1 / Tg)
Hz
Fundamental harmonic frequency ratio (ωΩ_6 : ωΩ_7)
278

www.deltagroupengineering.com

ωΩ_2
ωΩ_3
ωΩ_4
ωΩ_5
ωΩ_6
ωΩ_7

Gravitational acceleration form of ωΩ_1
Transformed representation of ωΩ_1
ωΩ_1 at the event horizon of a SBH
ωΩ_1 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)

Hz

NOTES

279

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

280

www.deltagroupengineering.com

APPENDIX 4.A
Thermodynamic “Π
Π” Groupings of BH’s
The temperature of a BH is given by (“κ” denotes Boltzmann’s constant [35]),
h .c

T BH

3

2
16.π .κ .G.M BH

(4.481)

This may be represented in “Π” form as follows
h .c

3

1

2
2
16.π .κ .G.M BH ( 4 .π ) .M BH

2
.
. c . hc
G
κ

(4.482)

Recognising that “c2 / G = mh / λh”, “ωh = c / λh” and64 “Th = mhc2 / κ = hωh / κ” yields,
1
2
( 4 .π ) .M BH

mh
2
( 4 .π ) .M BH

mh

2
.
. c . hc
G
κ

.
. hc
.
κ λh
.

mh
2
( 4 .π ) .M BH

mh

.

2
( 4 .π ) .M BH

h .ω h

T h .m h

κ

2
( 4 .π ) .M BH

2
( 4 .π ) .M BH

Hence,
T BH

.
. hc
κ .λ h

(4.483)

h .ω h
κ

(4.484)

(4.485)

T h .m h
2
( 4 .π ) .M BH

(4.486)

Therefore, the thermodynamic “Π” representation of BH temperature is given by,
Th

.

T BH

mh

( 4 .π )

2

M BH

(4.487)

Note: it is a personal preference of the author, never to apply the “h-bar” form of Planck’s
Constant.
Conventional calculation of SPBH temperature “TBH”
The EGM construct identifies that the “Primordial Universe” may be modelled as a SPBH
of mass “mxmh”. Hence, substituting “mxmh = λxmh / 2” into the “Π” form of BH temperature
yields,
Th
T BH

.

mh
m x.m h

Th

. 1
T BH m x

Th
T BH

. 2
λx

2
( 4 .π )

(4.488)

64

Planck temperature = Planck energy divided by “κ”.
http://www.planck.com/plancktemperature.htm
281

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Th

2
( 4 .π ) .λ x

T BH

2

2
8 .π .λ x

(4.489)

Therefore, the conventional representation of the temperature of a SPBH is given by,
Th

T BH m x.m h

2
8 .π .λ x

(4.490)

Evaluating yields,
Th

.
= 1.66667410

30

( K)

2

8 .π .λ x

(4.491)

“TU2 : TBH”
The ratio between “TBH” and the maximum value of “TU2” since the “Big-Bang” (i.e. at “t1”)
may be determined numerically, leading to a simple relationship between them [i.e. an
approximation to within “1.72(%)”] as follows,
T U2

1
t1

= 19.173025

T BH m x.m h

(4.492)

Hence,
T U2

1

6 .π .T BH m x.m h

t1

(4.493)

Therefore by approximation,
T U2

1

3 .T h

t1

4 .π .λ x

(4.494)

Evaluating the difference yields,
T U2

1
t1

6 .π .T BH m x.m h

1 = 1.716054 ( % )

(4.495)

Approximations of “TU2(t1-1)”

“1st” Form

The peak value of Cosmological temperature may be usefully approximated [i.e. to within
0.163(%)] by applying Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s) to the gravitational Poynting
Vector “SωΩ”, yielding the dimensional limit of the Cosmological temperature “TSPBH” (“σ” denotes
the Stefan-Boltzmann constant [35]) as follows,
4

T SPBH

S ωΩ λ x.λ h , m x.m h
σ

(4.496)

Evaluating yields,
.
T SPBH = 5.02766910

31

( K)

(4.497)

Comparing the result to the conventional BH form produces,

282

www.deltagroupengineering.com

T SPBH
T BH m x.m h

= 30.165887

(4.498)

Comparing the result to the precise EGM form produces,
T SPBH
T U2

= 1.57335

1
t1

(4.499)

Therefore by approximation,
T U2

1

3
K ω .T SPBH

t1

(4.500)

Evaluating,
3
. 31 ( K )
K ω .T SPBH = 3.20071410

(4.501)

Hence, the difference yields,
3
K ω .T SPBH

T U2

1 = 0.162602 ( % )

1
t1

(4.502)

Since the difference between forms is small [i.e. “< 0.163(%)”], we may usefully
approximate “TU2(t-1)” according to,
4
3.

K ω T SPBH K ω

3
3 .m x.m h .c

3.

4 .π .σ . λ x.λ h
4

4
3
Kω .

4 .π .σ . λ x.λ h

4

3.

3.

3.

2

3

3 .m h .c

3.

3
3 .c . ω h
8 .π .G.σ λ x

3.

4

2

4

.m .c3
h

3 .m h .c

3.

3
3 .c . ω h
8 .π .G.σ λ x

3
2
3 .c .H α
8 .π .G.σ

3

(4.504)

3

2
3
8 .π .σ .λ x .λ h
4

3

λx

4 .π .σ . λ x.λ h

4
3.

(4.503)

2

3
Kω .

.m .c3
h

2
3
8 .π .σ .λ x .λ h

4

λx

3

4 .π .σ . λ x.λ h
4

3.

3
3 .m x.m h .c

3

(4.505)

2

(4.506)

(4.507)

4

3
2
3
2
3 .c .H α 2 3 .c .H α
3.
.

8 .π .G.σ π
8 .π .G.σ
4

(4.508)

4

2
2
. 3.
. 3.
2. 3 c Hα 1. 6 c Hα
π
8 .π .G.σ π
π .G.σ

283

(4.509)
www.deltagroupengineering.com

4

2
. 3.
1. 6 c Hα
π
π .G.σ

4

6 .c
π .σ .G
3

.

π

(4.510)

Therefore by approximation,
T U2

1

t1

π

4

.

6 .c
π .σ .G
3

(4.511)

Checking the result confirms the simplification,

4

.

π

6 .c
. 31 ( K )
= 3.20071410
π .σ .G
3

(4.512)

“2nd” Form

“TU2(t-1)” may be approximated explicitly in terms of physical constants as follows (to
within “0.249(%)” where, “KW” denotes Wien’s displacement constant [35]),
T U2

2
c . KW
5 G.κ

1
t1

(4.513)

Evaluating,
2
c . KW
. 31 ( K )
= 3.18758510
5 G.κ

(4.514)

Hence, the approximation error is,
T U2

1

1
t1

2
KW
.c .
5 G.κ

1 = 0.248248 ( % )

(4.515)

Approximation of “λ
λx” in terms of physical constants
The value of “λx” may be usefully approximated in terms of physical constants to within
“1.45(%)” as follows,
3 .T h

2
c . KW
4 .π .λ x 5 G.κ

(4.516)

Hence by approximation,
λx

15.T h

.
. Gκ
KW
4 .π .c
2

(4.517)

Simplifying yields,
m .c
. h
15
15.T h G.κ
κ . G.κ
.
2
2
KW
KW
4 .π .c
4 .π .c

(4.518)

m h .c
15.
.
κ . G.κ 15 m h . G.κ
2
K W 4 .π .κ K W
4 .π .c

(4.519)

2

2

284

www.deltagroupengineering.com

15.m h

15.m h
.
G
. Gκ
.
4 .π .κ K W
4 .π
κ .K W

15.m h
4 .π

.

(4.520)

15 . h .c .
G
κ .K W 4 .π G κ .K W
G

(4.521)

15 . h .c .
G
15 .
h .c
4 .π G
κ .K W 4 .π κ .K W

(4.522)

Therefore by approximation,
λx

15 .
h .c
.
.
4 π κ KW

(4.523)

Evaluating,
15 .
h .c
= 2.659782
4 .π κ .K W

(4.524)

1 . 15 .
h .c
.
.
λx 4 π κ KW

(4.525)

Hence, the approximation error is,
1 = 1.442436 ( % )

Physical interpretation of “λ
λx”
A physical interpretation of “λx” is possible utilising the Stefan-Boltzmann Law where, “Φ”
denotes the energy flux emitted from a “Black-Body” at temperature “T” according to,
Φ σ .T

4

(4.526)

Subsequently, if we equate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to the peak average Cosmological
temperature (correlating to the approximated temperature of a SPBH), a physical interpretation of
“λx” is possible as follows,
Φ σ.

3 .T h

4

4 .π .λ x

(4.527)
th

Therefore by inspection, “λx” is proportional to the “4 power-root” of the energy flux of the
Universe at the peak average Cosmological temperature, in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann
Law shown by,
λx ∝

285

4

1
Φ

(4.528)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

286

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Bibliography 4
Note: [1 - 19] refer to: http://stores.lulu.com/dge; “Riccardo C. Storti”, Quinta Essentia: A Practical
Guide to Space-Time Engineering, Part 3, Metric Engineering & The Quasi-Unification of ParticlePhysics.
[1] Ch. 3.1, Dimensional Analysis.
[2] Ch. 3.2, General Modelling and the Critical Factor.
[3] Ch. 3.3, The Engineered Metric.
[4] Ch. 3.4, Amplitude and Frequency Spectra.
[5] Ch. 3.5, General Similarity.
[6] Ch. 3.6, Harmonic and Spectral Similarity.
[7] Ch. 3.7, The Casimir Effect.
[8] Ch. 3.8, Derivation of the Photon Mass-Energy Threshold.
[9] Ch. 3.9, Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron).
[10] Ch. 3.10, Derivation of the Photon and Graviton Mass-Energies and Radii.
[11] Ch. 3.11, Derivation of Lepton Radii.
[12] Ch. 3.12, Derivation of Quark and Boson Mass-Energies and Radii.
[13] Ch. 3.13, The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an Experiment to
Test the Negative Energy Conjecture.
[14] App. 3.G, Derivation of ElectroMagnetic Radii.
[15] App. 3.H, Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Associated Neutrino Radii.
[16] App. 3.I, Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) and an Experimentally
Implicit Definition of the Bohr Radius.
[17] App. 3.K, Numerical Simulations, MathCad 8 Professional, Complete Simulation.
[18] App. 3.L, Numerical Simulations, MathCad 8 Professional, Calculation Engine.
[19] App. 3.M, Numerical Simulations, MathCad 12, High Precision Calculation Results.
[20] http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/astrorpp.pdf
[21] http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-2/mass.html
[22] http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/hubblerpp.pdf (pg. 20 - “WMAP + All”).
[23] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
[25] “Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch”, Contribution to inertial mass by reaction of the vacuum to
accelerated motion, Found.Phys. 28 (1998) 1057-1108: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802030v1
[26] “Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch”, Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion,
Phys.Lett. A240 (1998) 115-126: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031v1
[27] “Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, Hal Puthoff”, Advances in the proposed ElectroMagnetic
zero-point field theory of inertia, presentation at 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, July 13-15, 1998, Cleveland, OH, 10 pages: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023v2
[28] “Puthoff et. Al.”, Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) approach to general relativity, Found. Phys. 32,
927 - 943 (2002): http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909037v2
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] “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
[32] “P. W. Milonni”, The Quantum Vacuum – An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics,
Academic Press, Inc. 1994. Page 403.
[33] Mathworld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Euler-MascheroniConstant.html
[34] “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
287

www.deltagroupengineering.com

[35] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/
[36] 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
[37] 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
[38] 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
[39] “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
[40] “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
[41] Spectrum of the Hydrogen Atom, University of Tel Aviv.
http://www.tau.ac.il/~phchlab/experiments/hydrogen/balmer.htm
[42] The CDF & D0 Collaborations, W Mass & Properties, FERMILAB-CONF-05-507-E.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0511039v1
[43] 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
[44] 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
[45] 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
[46] “James William Rohlf”, Modern Physics from α to Z, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1994.
[47] “Joseph Depp”, Polarizable Vacuum and the Schwarzschild Solution.
[48] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/
[49] http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s000.pdf
Other useful references:
[50] “J. F. Douglas”, Solving Problems in Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 2, Third Edition, Longman
Scientific & Technical, ISBN 0-470-20776-0 (USA only), 1986.
[51] Software: MathCad 8 Professional, http://www.mathsoft.com/
[52] University of Illinois, http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/mathmine1.html
[53] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
[54] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem
[55] University of California, Riverside,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
[56] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/exchg.html
[57] “B.S. Massey”, Mechanics of Fluids sixth edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold (International),
1989, Ch. 9.
[58] “Rogers & Mayhew”, Engineering Thermodynamics Work & Heat Transfer third edition,
Longman Scientific & Technical, 1980, Part IV, Ch. 22.
[59] “Douglas, Gasiorek, Swaffield”, Fluid Mechanics second edition, Longman Scientific &
Technical, 1987, Part VII, Ch. 25.
[60] “Erwin Kreyszig”, Advanced Engineering Mathematics Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
1993, Ch. 10.
[61] “R.H. Dicke”, Gravitation without a principle of equivalence. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363 – 376,
1957.
288

www.deltagroupengineering.com

[62] “R.H. Dicke”, Mach’s principle and equivalence, in Proc. Of the International School of
Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course XX, Evidence for Gravitational Theories, ed. C. Møller, Academic
Press, New York, 1961, pp. 1 – 49.
[63] “Puthoff et. Al.”, Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar
Flight, JBIS, Vol. 55, pp.137, 2002, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0107316v2
[64] “K.A. Stroud”, “Further Engineering Mathematics”, MacMillan Education LTD, Camelot
Press LTD, 1986, Programme 17.
[65] “Lennart Rade, Bertil Westergren”, “Beta Mathematics Handbook Second Edition”, ChartwellBratt Ltd, 1990, Page 470.
[66] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BeatFrequency.html
[67] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquationsSteadyState.html
[68] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticRadiation.html
[69] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html
[70] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquations.html
[71] http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/students.php/all_subjects/series
[72] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/whdwar.html
[73] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redgia.html
[74] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/pulsar.html
[75] “Stein, B. P”. Physics Update, Physics Today 48, 9, Oct. 1995.
[76] “Simon et Al.”, Nucl. Phys. A333, 381 (1980).
[77] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html
[78] “Andrews et Al.”, 1977 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 3 L91 – L92.
[79] “L.N. Hand, D.G. Miller, and R. Wilson”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 335 (1963).
[80] Stanford Linear Accelerator, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html
[81] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckLength.html
[82] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html
[83] Stanford Linear Accelerator, http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html
[84] “Joshipura et. Al.”, Bounds on the tau Neutrino magnetic moment and charge radius from
Super-K and SNO observations, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0108018v1
[85] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BohrRadius.html
[86] “Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier”,
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Fourier.html
[87] http://stores.lulu.com/dge
[88] http://www.veoh.com/users/DeltaGroupEngineering
[89] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3_-_Summary.pdf
[90] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3_-_Calculation_Engine.pdf
[91] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3_-_High_Precision_(MCAD12).pdf
[92] http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/top.html#PAIR
[93] Cornell University Library: http://www.arxiv.org/

289

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

290

www.deltagroupengineering.com

APPENDIX 4.B
Note: “Quinta Essentia – Part 4” is a companion to “Quinta Essentia – Part 3”. 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” has been included
(verbatim) herein for reference. Please consult “Part 3” 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 )

291

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

292

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

293

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 )

294

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

295

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

296

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

.

297

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

298

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

299

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 ( % )

300

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

301

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

302

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

303

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

304

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

305

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(%)

306

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

307

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

308

. 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

309

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

310

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

311

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

312

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)

313

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

314

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

( )

315

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

316

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 

317

 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

318

(

)

 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

319

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

320

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.
321

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

322

(%)

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 )

323

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

324

(%)

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 )

325

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

326

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

327

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 )

328

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

329

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

330

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

331

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

332

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

333

. 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

334

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

335

. 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)

336

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)

337

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)

338

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

339

. 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

340

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

341

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 )

342

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 ( % )

343

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

344

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

345

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

346

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

347

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

348

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

349

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

350

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

351

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

352

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

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

2

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.

353

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

354

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 )

355

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

356

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

357

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

358

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

359

.
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

360

= 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

361

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,

362

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

363

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

364

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

365

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

366

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

367

=

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 (%)

368

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

369

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

370

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

371

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

372

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

373

(%)

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

374

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

375

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

376

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

377

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

378

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

379

=

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

380

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

381

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

382

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

383

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

384

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

385

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

386

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

387

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

388

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

⋅

389

⋅

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

390

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Periodic Table of the Elements

391

www.deltagroupengineering.com

NOTES

392

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.1.5.1 “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

393

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.1.5.2 “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)

394

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.1 “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)

395

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.2 “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)

396

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.3 “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)

397

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.4 “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)

398

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.5 “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)

399

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.6 “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)

400

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.7 “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)

401

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.8 “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)

402

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.9 “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)

403

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

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.10 “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)

404

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

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.11 “|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)

405

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.2.5.12 “|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)

406

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.1 “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)

407

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.2 “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)

408

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.3 “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)

409

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.4 “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)

410

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.5 “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)

411

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.6 “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)

412

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.7 “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)

413

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.8 “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)

414

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.9 “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)

415

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.10 “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)

416

1 .10 40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.11 “|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)

417

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.12 “|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)

418

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.13 “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)

419

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Quick Reference Graphs

8.3.6.14 “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)

420

www.deltagroupengineering.com

90000
ID: 795547
www.lulu.com

9 781847 534033

Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering - Part 4

ISBN 978-1-84753-403-3