You are on page 1of 34

# SPIE Conference (San Diego): August 3, 2009

The Nature of Light
Riccardo C. Storti www.deltagroupengineering.com

 dgE

Does a Photon have mass, charge & size?
The Particle Data Group (PDG) estimates its mass-energy threshold to be “< 1 x10-18(eV)” • Based upon solar wind observations The PDG estimates its charge threshold to be “< 5 x10-30(Qe)” • Based upon Pulsar observations The PDG does not assign nor estimate the property of “size” We calculate its mass-energy to be “mγγ ≤ 3.2 x10-45(eV)” • Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 207 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.614634 • Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511 We calculate its charge to be “Qγγ ≤ 7.1 x10-60(Qe)” • Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 10.4, pg. 265, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3 We calculate its diameter “φγγ” to be the Planck Length “λh”, i.e., “φγγ = λh” to within approx. “15.3(%)” • Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511

http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html
 dgE

Q: What is particle size?
This is an open question with potentially subjective answers The concept of a particle possessing “point size” is meaningless – i.e. “point size” cannot be challenged; it is not forensic We know what it can’t be; i.e., it can’t be “0” or “∞” – “0” is smaller than the Planck Length – “∞” is larger than the visible Universe Why? Because absolute “0” or “∞” anything, have never & can never be experimentally measured; e.g., attainment of absolute “0” temperature would require another Universe to act as an “energy sink” for an experiment conducted in our Universe, failure of this constraint would invalidate thermodynamic principles Considering the above, how may we attempt to universally define particle size?

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

A: What is particle size?
We may universally define fundamental particle size by considering all matter (i.e. at rest), to exist in a state of equilibrium with the gravitational field surrounding it Hence, for a fundamental particle represented by a “point mass”, at rest in its “own” Universe (i.e. devoid of all other matter & energy), its gravitational field cannot contain more energy than the rest mass of the particle (i.e. by definition, no additional energy exists) Thus, by equating the energy density of the gravitational field, to the mass-energy density of the particle, an equilibrium radius (i.e. its size) may be computed; this definition of “size” has been experimentally verified to coincide with the Root-Mean-Square & Mean-Square charge radii of the Proton & Neutron respectively • Phys. Essays 19, 592 (2006) (8 pages); DOI:10.4006/1.3028864 • Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545
Polarized ZPF

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

How may we equilibrate the “g” field?
Let “E = mc2” per unit volume “V(r)” equal the Spectral Energy Density “ρ0” of the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF), integrating over the frequency domain (i.e. ω = Hz) • Phys. Essays 19, 592 (2006) (8 pages); DOI:10.4006/1.3028864
Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch; Gravity & the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 14, No. 8, 479–498 (2005), DOI 10.1002/andp.200510147
Describing the frequency distribution utilising Fourier series yields the ZPF equilibrium radius

Polarized ZPF

2 m.c

V( r )

ρ 0( ω ) d ω

2 .h . c
3

ω dω

3

“m” = mass, “c” = speed of light in a vacuum, “h” = Planck’s Constant

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What is gained by this approach?
A. A solution for the cubic frequency distribution proposed by Haisch & Rueda in their QuantumVacuum-Inertia-Hypothesis (QVIH) • 2005: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 • 2005: Annalen der Physik, vol. 14, Issue 8, pp.479-498 – http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005gr.qc.....4061R The continuous ZPF frequency distribution in the QVIH may be substituted with a discrete & fully quantised frequency spectrum in terms of Fourier Harmonics, describing the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) field articulated by “H. E. Puthoff ” • 2001: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909037 • 2002: Found.Phys. 32 (2002) 927-943, DOI 10.1023/A:1016011413407 This substitution avoids the Cosmological problem of “infinite energy in flat space-time” because, for a solitary neutrally charged, non-rotating “point mass” at rest, occupying an otherwise empty & flat Universe, it ensures that: 1. The gravitational acceleration field cannot contain more energy than “E = mc2” 2. By determination of the spectral frequency limits, the energy per unit volume “J/m3” of the Universe surrounding it is always finite FOR MORE INFO...

B.

C.

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What are the spectral frequency limits?
The lower spectral limit of any point in a radial gravitational acceleration field is given by “ωPV(1,r,M)”; the corresponding upper spectral limit is described by “ωΩ(r,M)” “nΩ(r,M)” denotes the terminating field mode obeying the integer sequence “1, 3, 5 …. nΩ(r,M)”; thus, the spectral characteristics of any point in a radial gravitational acceleration field are quantised against the lower spectral limit, in accordance with the integer sequence (see equation below) – Phys. Essays 19, 592 (2006) (8 pages); DOI:10.4006/1.3028864 – Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545 “KPV(r,M)” represents the Refractive Index in the PV representation of General Relativity (GR); its value is usefully approximated to unity for all fundamental particles & weak gravitational fields – 2001: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909037 – 2002: Found.Phys. 32 (2002) 927-943, DOI 10.1023/A:1016011413407
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3 1 . 2 .c .G.M . K PV( r , M ) .r r π

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

“r” = ZPF equilibrium radius, “M” = rest mass, “c” = speed of light in a vacuum & “G” = Gravitational Constant

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

How is the Cosmological problem of “infinite energy in flat space-time” avoided?
Let’s look at an example of what happens to the spectral limits of the gravitational acceleration field, in terms of Quantum Mechanics (QM) & ZPF theory; in the case of a solitary neutrally charged, nonrotating “point mass” at rest, occupying an otherwise empty & flat Universe, as the distance from the “point mass” increases, the value of the Refractive Index approaches unity “KPV(r,M) 1” (i.e. by definition, see “Puthoff et. al.”) Thus, “ωPV(1,r,M) 0” as “r ∞”, according to:
lim r ∞ ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3 1 . 2 .c .G.M . lim lim K PV - K + r π .r r ∞ PV 1

simplifies to

ω PV( 1 , ∞ , M ) 0 .( Hz)

Consequently, as “ωPV(1,r,M)

0”, “ωΩ(r,M)

0” according to:

ω Ω ( ∞ , M ) n Ω ( ∞ , M ) .ω PV( 1 , ∞ , M ) 0 .( Hz)

Therefore, the Spectral Energy Density “ρ0(ω)” of flat space-time (i.e. when “r ∞”) approaches zero, & the Cosmological problem of “infinite energy” is avoided; hence, a vanishing volume at “r = ∞” contains no energy! FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What is the spectral limit of curved space-time?
As mass-energy density increases, the terminating spectral mode “nΩ(r,M)” at a point in the gravitational acceleration field decreases – Phys. Essays 20, 101 (2007) (12 pages); DOI: 10.4006/1.3073796 Consequently, for a Schwarzschild-Black-Hole of radius “RBH” & mass “MBH”, the lower spectral limit of the gravitational acceleration field at the Event Horizon, converges with the upper limit according to: – “nΩ(RBH,MBH) 1” such that “ωPV(1,RBH,MBH) ωΩ(RBH,MBH)” For a Schwarzschild-Black-Hole approaching the Planck Scale, of radius “λx·λh” & mass “mx·mh”, the terminating spectral mode at the Event Horizon is unity “nΩ(λx·λh,mx·mh) = 1”; for this specific case, the singularity radius “rS” coincides with the Event Horizon & is conjectured to be the spectral state of the Universe at the instant of the “Big-Bang” …. more about this in the coming slides – Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 6.1-6.5, pg. 138-156, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3 Therefore, the spectral limit of curved space-time at the Event Horizon of a Schwarzschild-Black-Hole is given in terms of the Planck Frequency “ωh” by:

ωPV(1,λx·λh,mx·mh) = ωΩ(λx·λh,mx·mh) ≈ ¼·ωh

λx

4 . 2 6 π 3

mx

λx 2

λx mx

=

2.6987 1.3494

“λh” = Planck Length, “mh” = Planck Mass

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What does the generalised spectral equation tell us about Photons?
The generalised spectral equation for any point in a gravitational acceleration field [i.e. “ωPV(nPV,r,M)”], is simply “ωPV(1,r,M)” expressed in terms of the harmonic field mode “nPV” obeying the familiar integer sequence, “nPV = 1, 3, 5 …. nΩ(r,M)” according to:
ω PV n PV, r , M n PV 3 2 .c .G.M . . K ( r, M ) PV r π .r

This equation facilitates the derivation of the following: – The Photon mass-energy threshold (2005 PDG value) • Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 207 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.614634 – The Photon & Graviton mass-energies & radii (upper limits) • Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511 – The Photon & Graviton mass-energies & radii (lower limits) • Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 10.1-10.2, pg. 264, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3 – The Photon charge threshold (2008 PDG value ) & the Photon charge upper / lower limits • Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 10.3-10.5, pg. 264-266, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3 FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What can we derive if a Photon has mass?
The mass & size of all existing fundamental particles & the prediction of new ones by the formulation of a single harmonic equation; i.e., we may describe all fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily selected reference particle in harmonic terms – Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545 The Hubble Constant & the effect of Dark Matter upon it The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature The ZPF energy density threshold; i.e., the Cosmological influence of Dark Energy The Cosmological evolution process The “Accelerated Cosmological Expansion” phenomenon – http://www.lulu.com/content/multimedia/18th-national-congress-(aip)/6346375 – The Natural Philosophy of The Cosmos (A), Proc. AIP, 18th National Congress (2008), ISBN 1-876346-57-4

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

How may we utilise the upper spectral limit to describe fundamental particles?
The upper spectral limit [i.e. “ωΩ(r,M)”] incorporates “size” & mass information, representing a unique spectral signature; thus, by applying the known masses & derived radii of the Proton “rπ”, Neutron “rν” & Electron “rε”, the following ratio’s may represented in matrix form:
ω Ω r ε, m e . ω Ω r π, m p ω Ω r ν,mn
1 1

=

1.9997 1.9941

ω Ω r ε, m e .

ω Ω r π, m p ω Ω r ν,mn

1 1

2=

0.0288 0.593

( %)

– Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545 – Phys. Essays 22, 27 (2009) (6 pages); DOI: 10.4006/1.3062144 These harmonic ratio’s, i.e. to within “0.6(%)” of the integer value “2”, provoke the question as to how much they might change if they were exactly equal to “2”; thereby representing a precise harmonic relationship between the Proton, Neutron & Electron Consequently, we have identified a harmonic hypothesis, let’s test it! Note: the derived values of “rπ” & “rν” have been experimentally verified FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

Testing the harmonic hypothesis
If we assume an exact harmonic relationship exists between the Proton, Neutron & Electron, how does it change the derived values of “rπ”, “rν” & “rε”? The MathCad algorithm determining the impact to the derived values is shown below; “rππ”, “rνν” & “rεε” denote the values of Proton, Neutron & Electron radii respectively, subject to the harmonic constraint Notably, the deviation from initial values is “< 0.51(%)”
Given ω Ω r εε , m e . r εε r ππ r νν Find r εε , r ππ, r νν ω Ω r ππ, m p ω Ω r νν , m n
1 1

am = attometre = x10-18(m)

2

r εε

11.8039 831.1563

r ππ = 830.6985 ( am) r νν

r εε r ππ r νν rε rπ rν

1=

. 0.0264 5.003910

4

0.5093 ( % )

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

Testing the harmonic hypothesis cont..
How does this harmonic constraint impact experimentally measured values? …. Since no precise experimental measurement of Electron radius presently exists, our impact analysis is limited to the Proton & Neutron; however, the ‘best’ available estimate is “< 1 x10-18(m)”, which compares favourably with our derived value of “rε” – http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29724 The Neutron radius is typically expressed as a “-fm2” quantity; therefore, we are required to convert our representation to a comparable form, designated “KSS(rνν)” The numerators represent the harmonically constrained derivation, whilst the denominators denote the experimentally measured values; notably, the deviation from experimental measurement is “< 1.35(%)”, & well within experimental tolerance
r ππ
2 0.69. fm

K SS r νν
2 0.113. fm

. 1 = 4.342110

3

1.3463 ( % )

– Proton [0.69(fm2)]½: Selex Collaboration (2001), http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0106053v2 – Neutron [-0.113(fm2)]: Karmanov (2001), http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106349v1 FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

From the preceding slides, the next logical step is to express a generalised ratio of terminating spectral frequencies “Stω”, of the form:
2 5

ω Ω r 1, M 1 ω Ω r 2, M 2

M1 M2

9

.

r2 r1

9

St ω

– where (or vice-versa) • “r1” & “M1” denote the radius & mass of the subject particle • “r2” & “M2” denote the radius & mass of an arbitrarily selected reference particle Therefore, utilising this representation, it is possible to form a table of fundamental particle harmonics

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What harmonic patterns form?
Existing and Theoretical Particles Proton (p), Neutron (n) Electron (e), Electron Neutrino (νe) ν L2, ν2 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) L3, ν3 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) Muon (µ), Muon Neutrino (νµ) µ ν L5, ν5 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) Tau (τ), Tau Neutrino (ντ) τ ν Up Quark (uq), Down Quark (dq) Strange Quark (sq) Charm Quark (cq) Bottom Quark (bq) QB5 (Th. Quark or Boson: Gluon?) QB6 (Th. Quark or Boson: Gluon?) W Boson Z Boson Higgs Boson (H) (Theoretical) Top Quark (tq) Proton Harmonics Stω = 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112 126 140 Electron Harmonics Stω = 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 Quark Harmonics Stω = 1/14 1/7 2/7 3/7 4/7 5/7 6/7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This formulation is not unique, it is possible to deduce alternative harmonic sequences Consequently, this approach is deemed to be a methodology, not a theory

ω Ω r ε, m e

ω Ω r ε, m e ω Ω r ν ,mn

Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545 http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

ω Ω r π, m p

2

 dgE

Particle mass & size summary
Existing Particle Proton (p) Neutron (n) Electron (e-) Muon (µ-) µ Tau (τ-) τ Electron Neutrino (νe) ν Muon Neutrino (νµ) ν Tau Neutrino (ντ) ν Up Quark (uq) Down Quark (dq) Strange Quark (sq) Charm Quark (cq) Bottom Quark (bq) Top Quark (tq) W Boson Z Boson Higgs Boson (H): Th. Existing Particles Photon (γ) γ Graviton (γg): Theoretical γ Gluon (gl): Theoretical ew Particles (Theoretical) L2 (Lepton) L3 (Lepton) L5 (Lepton) QB5 (Quark or Boson) QB6 (Quark or Boson) EGM Radii (am) rπ = 830.7026 rν = 826.9443 rε = 11.8070 rµ = 8.2160 rτ = 12.2407 ren ≈ 0.0811 rµn ≈ 0.6552 rτn ≈ 1.9587 ruq ≈ 0.6805 rdq ≈ 0.8811 rsq ≈ 0.8561 rcq ≈ 1.1226 rbq ≈ 1.0793 rtq ≈ 0.9140 rW ≈ 1.2837 rZ ≈ 1.0617 rH ≈ 0.9404 EGM Radii rγγ = ½Kλλh rgg = 2(2/5)rγγ N/A EGM Radii (am) rL ≈ 10.7546 rQB ≈ 0.9799 PDG Applied Mass-Energy PDG Mass-Energy Range or Threshold

• EGM is the name given to our Photon radiation method

Mass-Energy is precisely known See: National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) -100 Note: δm = 10 , am = attometre = x10-18(m) men(eV) ≈ 2 - δm mµn(MeV) ≈ 0.19 - δm mτn(MeV) ≈ 18.2 - δm muq(MeV) ≈ 2.59 mdq(MeV) ≈ 4.94 msq(MeV) ≈ 104 mcq(GeV) ≈ 1.27 mbq(GeV) ≈ 4.20 mtq(GeV) ≈ 171.2 mW(GeV) ≈ 80.398 mZ(GeV) ≈ 91.1876 mH(GeV) ≈ 114.4 + δm EGM Derived Mass-Energy mγγ ≈ 3.2 x10-45(eV) mgg = 2mγγ N/A EGM Derived Mass-Energy mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV) mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV) mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV) mQB(5) ≈ 9(GeV) mQB(6) ≈ 20.5(GeV) men(eV) < 2 mµn(MeV) < 0.19 mτn(MeV) < 18.2 1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3.3 3.5 < mdq(MeV) < 6 70 < msq(MeV) < 130 1.16 < mcq(GeV) < 1.34 4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.37 169.1 < mtq(GeV) < 173.3 80.373 < mW(GeV) < 80.423 91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897 mH(GeV) > 114.4 PDG Mass-Energy Threshold mγ < 1 x10-18(eV) No definitive commitment mgl = 0(eV): Theoretical PDG Mass-Energy Range or Threshold

• Black text: PDG data & EGM predictions “< 2008” • Red text: “2008” PDG data • Blue text: “2008” EGM radii predictions of existing particles • Green text: “2008” EGM radii & mass-energy predictions of new particles • Magnitude of average change in EGM radii from previous values due to “2008” PDG revision is “3.5(%)” (blue text only) • The EGM radii & mass-energy of the Gluon is set to “ /A”, due to its mass-energy being subject to conjecture. However, it is possible to express the radii & mass-energy of the Gluon in a manner consistent with EGM methodology if assumptions are articulated

Not predicted or considered

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What errors are associated with our Photon Radiation method w.r.t Particle-Physics?
Note: EGM is the name given to our Photon radiation method
Particle / Atom EGM Prediction Proton (p) rπ = 830.7026 (am) rπE = 848.6366 (am) rπM = 850.059 (am) rp = 874.6969 (am) Neutron (n) rν = 826.9443 (am) KS = -0.1134 (fm2) rνM = 879.0649 (am) Top Quark (tq) mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4405 Hydrogen (H) λA = 657.3290 (nm) SM Prediction or Exp. Meas. rπ = 830.6624 (am) [1] rπE = 848 (am) [2] rπM = 857 (am) [2] rp = 876.8 (am) [3] rX ≈ 825.6174 (am) KX = -0.113 (fm2) [4] rνM = 879 (am) [2] mtq(GeV) ≈ 171.2 [5] λB = 656.4696 (nm) Standard Calc. (%) Error < 0.005 < 0.080 < 0.817 < 0.240 < 0.161 < 0.322 < 0.008 < 4.230 < 0.131

• [1] 2001: Selex Collaboration
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0106053v2

• [2] 2004: Hammer & Meißner
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312081v3

• [3] 2009: NIST
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

• [4] 2001: Karmanov
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106349v1

As Above Note: am = attometre = 10-18(m)

< 1.372 rπE = 837 (am) [6] < 0.229 rπM = 852 (am) [6] < 1.985 rX ≈ 843.6856 (am) 2 KX = -0.118 (fm ) [6] < 4.100 < 1.885 rνM = 862.5 (am) [6] Mag. of Average Error “< 1.12 (%)”

• [5] 2008: PDG
http://pdglive.lbl.gov/

• [6] 2008: Hammer & Meißner
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0608337v1

The highlighted “2008” Hammer & Meißner results denote the average values of two unique approaches (i.e. SuperConvergence & the Explicit “pQCD” Continuum)

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What is “rν” physically?
Neutron Charge Distribution
rν r dr

Charge Density

ρ ch( r ) ρ ch r 0 ρ ch r dr

• “rν” denotes the ZPF (i.e. space-time) equilibrium radius • “rν” coincides with the Neutron Mean-Square charge radius, conventionally represented as a “-fm2” quantity • “rν” marks the transition of the positive core to the negative shell (i.e. when the charge density is zero) • “rdr” marks the minimum charge density

“+ve” Core
r dr 5. rν 3

Charge Density Maximum Charge Density Minimum Charge Density

“-ve” Shell

Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545 http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

 dgE

Testing the harmonic hypothesis …. Again!
Arguably, the greatest test of any methodology, theory or physical concept, is whether or not it may be applied & experimentally verified on a Cosmological scale The harmonic hypothesis may be tested on the Cosmological scale by assuming that: – “M1” = the initial total mass of the Universe “Mi” – “M2” = the present total mass of the Universe “Mf” (i.e. equal to “Mi”) – “r1” = the initial size of the Universe “ri” (i.e. at the instant of the “Big-Bang”) – “r2” = the present Hubble size of the observable Universe “rf” Let “Stω9” equal the ratio of the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter “TL” to the present Hubble age of the observable Universe “AU” Electric Charge (Qe) & Spin-Angular-Momentum (SAM) are not represented in the harmonic hypothesis because the Universe does not possess a “net charge” or “spin”; thus, if we wish to develop a scaling methodology applicable to all scales of reality, “charge” & “spin” cannot be included (i.e. the present Cosmological values of zero “net charge” & “spin” cannot be reverse-engineered to non-zero initial values) …. How can one scale a zero quantity? FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

Testing the harmonic hypothesis cont..
Respecting “conservation of mass-energy”, we immediately recognise that “Mi = Mf” Hence, the harmonic hypothesis applied to Cosmology takes the form:
Mi Mf
2

.

rf ri

5

rf ri

5

St ω

9

TL Au

– where, the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter is given by “TL = h/mγγ”; • Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 6.7, pg. 163-167, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3 • “h” = Planck’s Constant • “mγγ” = the mass-energy of a Photon – Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511 By inspection, this equation appears plausible because it is a simple scaling relationship; i.e., the ratio of the present Hubble size of the Universe, to its size at the instant of the ‘Big-Bang”, is proportional to the ratio of the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter (assuming infinite time is a non-physical parameter), to the present Hubble age of the Universe Note: the above assumes that the Universe is flat (as experimentally confirmed by WMAP) FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

Testing the harmonic hypothesis cont..
Utilising the harmonic hypothesis, expressions for the Hubble Constant “H” & the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature “TU2” may be formulated – http://www.lulu.com/content/multimedia/18th-national-congress-(aip)/6346375 – The Natural Philosophy of The Cosmos (A), Proc. AIP, 18th National Congress (2008), ISBN 1-876346-57-4 – Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 7, pg. 175-193, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3 The harmonic hypothesis may be transformed according to (“KW” = Wien’s Constant):
rf ri
5

TL Au

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

Hα H

.H5 µ

. 2

,

St T

4 .µ
µ ( 4 .µ ) .c

.

λ x.ω h π

2

2 .µ

2

,

ωh λx

,

λ x 4.

2 .µ π
µ

,

µ

1 3

– where, • “StT”, “Hα”, “λx” (appeared in an earlier slide) & “µ” are forwardly derived constants • “Hα” denotes the Hubble Constant at the instant of the “Big-Bang” FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

What Cosmological results did we achieve?
A Hubble age of “14.6 Billion years” A Hubble Constant of “67.1(km/s/Mpc)” – i.e. to within approx. “4.7(%)” of PDG [2008: hubblerpp.pdf] estimates & experimental measurement by WMAP; “Hinshaw et. al.”, “2008-2009”, • http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0732v2 • Astrophys.J.Suppl.180: 225-245, 2009 A CMBR temperature of “2.7248(K)” – i.e. to within “0.01(%)” of the physical measurement by WMAP as reported by the PDG [2008: microwaverpp.pdf] A Galactic radius “Ro” of “8.1(kpc)” & total mass “MG” of “6.314 x1011(Solar masses)” – i.e. to within approx. “1.34(%)” of the PDG “Ro” value [2008: astrorpp.pdf], & “6(%)” of the average of two community estimates of “MG” • 2008: ApJ, 683, 137-148, DOI 10.1086/589148, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1314v1 • 2006: Astrophysics, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp.3-18, DOI 10.1007/s10511-006-0002-6, http://www.springerlink.com/content/r774717g00111425 FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

31 3.5 .10 Hα 1 t1

Av. Cosmological Temp. vs. Hubble Cons.

Max. Cosmological Temp.: 3.2x1031(K)

31 3 .10

T U3 H β Av. Cosmological Temperature (K) 1 T U3 e 5 .µ 2

31 2.5 .10

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

T vs. H
T U3 H β K W .St T .ln 1 Hβ . H .H β α
5 .µ 2

T U3 e

2 2 15 .µ . 5 .µ T U3 e 2 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

2

31 1 .10

30 5 .10

43 1 .10

1 .10

42

41 1 .10

1 .10

40 H β .H α

39 1 .10

38 1 .10

1 .10

37

36 1 .10

Big-Bang: 0(K), Hα ≈ 0.37ωh ω

Hubble Constant (Hz)

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

Graph 1
 dgE

72 1 .10 t1 t2

1st Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

71 8 .10

71 6 .10

71 4 .10

71 2 .10 dT dt H β .H α 1 0

dT/dt vs. t

dT dt t 1 (K/s) dT dt t 2 dT dt t 3 71 2 .10

71 4 .10

71 6 .10

dT dt ( t )

71 8 .10

2 5 .ln H α .t .µ K W .St T . 2 5 .µ . t t

1

72 1 .10

72 1.2 .10 42 1 .10

1 .10

41 H β .H α 1

1 .10

40

1 .10

39

Max. Cosmological Temp.: 3.2x1031(K)

Cosmological Age (s)

t = (HβHα)-1

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

Graph 2
 dgE

113 5 .10 t2 t3

2nd Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.

0

113 5 .10

d2T/dt2 vs. t

dT2 dt2 (K/s^2)

H β .H α

1 114 1 .10

dT2 dt2 t 1 dT2 dt2 t 2 dT2 dt2 t 3 114 1.5 .10

114 2 .10

114 2.5 .10

dT2 dt2 ( t )

2 2 5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ K W .St T . 2 5 .µ . 2 t t
9 .10 H β .H α 42 1 1 .10 41 1.1 .10 41 1.2 .10 41 1.3 .10 41

1

2

1

114 3 .10 42 2 .10

3 .10

42

4 .10

42

5 .10

42

6 .10

42

7 .10

42

8 .10

42

1.4 .10

41

1.5 .10

41

Cosmological Age (s)

t = (HβHα)-1

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

Graph 3
 dgE

1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
84 2 .10 1 Hα 84 1 .10 0 0 η 1 .10 1 dH dt e (Hz^2) 2 5 .µ 1 2 .10 1 dH dt e 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ 1 3 .10 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ dH dt e 4 1 2 2 84 4 .10 84 84 84 t1

t4

dH dt H β

2 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH/dt vs. t
2 H α .H γ . 5 .ln 1 .µ 2 2 Hγ 5 .µ Hγ
1 .10 38 1 .10 37

Hγ = Ηβη

5 .10

84

6 .10

84

dH dt H γ

1

7 .10

84

1 .10

43

1 .10

42

1 .10

41

1 .10

40

1 .10

39

1 .10

36

1 η H β .H α Cosmological Age (s)

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

Graph 4

1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
84 2 .10 1 Hα 84 1 .10 0 0 η 1 .10 1 dH dt e (Hz^2) 5 .µ 2 1 2 .10 1 dH dt e 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ 1 3 .10 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ dH dt e 4 1 2 2 84 4 .10 84 84 84 t1

t4

dH dt H β

2 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

dH/dt vs. t
Cosmological Inflation Cosmological Expansion

Hγ = Ηβη

5 .10

84

84 6 .10

7 .10

84

Max. Cosmological Temp. Line: 3.2x1031(K)
43 1 .10 42 1 .10 41 1 .10 40 1 .10 39 1 .10 38 1 .10 37 1 .10 36

1 .10

Big-Bang: 0(K), Hα ≈ 0.37ωh ω

1 η H β .H α Cosmological Age (s)

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

Graph 4
 dgE

2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant
125 8 .10 t5 125 7 .10

125 6 .10 η 125 5 .10 1 dH2 dt2 e (Hz^3) 5 .µ 2 1 1 dH2 dt2 e 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ 1 125 3 .10 4 1 2 2 125 2 .10 125 4 .10

d2H/dt2 vs. t
dH2 dt2 H γ
3 2 H α .H γ . 5 .µ 2 . ln 1 . 5 .µ 2 2 Hγ 5 .µ Hγ

dH2 dt2 H β

1

2

1

2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ dH2 dt2 e

2 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

125 1 .10

Hγ = Ηβη
0 1 .10 125

0

1 .10

42

1 .10

41

1 .10

40

1 η H β .H α Cosmological Age (s)

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

Graph 5
 dgE

Mag. of Hubble Cons. vs. Cosm. Age
1 2.5 .10 42 Hα

t1

Max. Cosmological Temp. Line: 3.2x1031(K)

Primordial Inflation Thermal Inflation
dH dt H β η 42 2 .10

√|dH/dt| vs. t
Hubble Inflation Hubble Expansion
t4

1 dH dt e (Hz) 5 .µ 2 1 1.5 .10 1 dH dt e 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ 1 42

2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ dH dt e

4 1

2 2 1 .10

2 2 2 5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ

42

5 .10

41

0 43 1 .10

1 .10

42

1 .10

41

1 .10

40

1 .10

39

1 .10

38

1 .10

37

Big-Bang: 0(K)

η H β .H α Cosmological Age (s)

1 .10 1

36

1 .10

35

1 .10

34

1 .10

33

1 .10

32

1 .10

31

1 .10

30

Note : the graph title is an abbreviated reference, see the proceedings for more information

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

Graph 6
 dgE

What do the results demonstrate?
The magnitude of acceleration in a constant gravitational field may be decomposed into a spectrum of frequencies obeying a Fourier distribution; this methodology unifies all matter, on all scales All matter may be treated as Graviton radiators; hence, all starving matter (including Black-Holes) will eventually “evaporate” as ejected Gravitons A Graviton may be described as a conjugate Photon pair (i.e. coupled); hence, “evaporation as ejected Gravitons” is actually “evaporation as ejected Photons” The Hubble Constant & CMBR temperature are related The influence of “Dark Matter / Energy” upon the Hubble Constant & CMBR temperature is “< 1(%)” The constitution of the Universe is: – “> 94.4(%)” Gravitons (i.e. conjugate Photon pairs) – “< 1(%)” Dark Matter / Energy (i.e. inexplicable) – “4.6(%)” Atoms The average Cosmological value of ZPF energy density is “–2.52x10-13(Pa)” hence, commercial energy extraction from the ZPF (i.e. the Casimir Force) is unlikely because the available ZPF energy is limited to “–0.252(mJ/km3)”; notably, the volume of the Sun only contains the equivalent ZPF energy of approx. “4(grams)” of matter! ….. The Sun has approx. “1.3 Million” times the volume of the Earth! FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

Standard Model

Conclusions
Experimental evidence questioning the existence of “Dark Matter” has been published in “nature” – http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/abs/nature07366.html – http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36372 – http://www.jeromedrexler.org/ Thus, we propose that; – All matter radiates Gravitons, these Gravitons may be modelled as conjugate Photon pairs; this radiation is the energy source for the “energy sink” conventionally termed “the space-time manifold”, resulting in “the curvature” described within the framework of GR – All starving matter will eventually evaporate, returning the energy “borrowed” (i.e. condensed) soon after the “Big-Bang”, back to the ZPF; the evaporation period is “> 4 x1022(yr)” – “Dark Matter” may be explained in terms of Gravitons, & “Dark Energy” is simply the Casimir Force acting on a Cosmological scale Most Importantly Matter is just a condensed form of Photons …. Hence, a Photon is a propagating “piece” of matter! FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE

The End
I hope you’ve enjoyed the show …. Feel free to talk with me after the presentation or you can contact me by: E-Mail: rstorti@deltagroupengineering.com Phone (Oz): +61 410-493-087