Chapter 7
Hunting the missing mass in our cosmos with Archimedes
HUNTING THE MISSING MASS IN OUR COSMOS WITH ARCHIMEDES If one takes a close look at the final table in chapter 3 of the section, the indirect proof for the hidden overall energy of the universe, then we are at a major break through. Namely, for all cosmologies based on GRT the critical density for Hubble’s constant is always determined using the mass inertia as it is observed. It is our well known rest mass valid every where. So nothing could be wrong in those cosmologies. However if on considers the mediating mass of hydrogen, which is a factor of 7.3 less than the rest mass of the H-atom, then a first impression is that one has a problem similar to Archimedes law of the upward pressure for objects emerged in fluids. Especially, the factor 2 between the overall mass in the 3D-graviton theory and the overall mass of the universe of GRT of congruent size looks promising, making a factor 14.6 or 3.65 possible between the two theories. So it is worthwhile to look in this topic more carefully. A means to do this is to calculate the number of H-atoms in the universe for both the kind of theories from the table. Luckily, the calculation is simple, for all overall masses are already available. The 3D-theory of Einstein- gravitons has a total mass of 0.458*10 exp(+53) kg , giving 2.005*10exp(+80) H-atoms, if one uses the mediating mass of 250.81*me . So the ratio between the numbers of atoms in the two models is 3.666. We wished for 14.6. So wrong guess. As it turns out, one can do better than that. What is the real number of H-atoms in the 3D-graviton model? For the cosmology of GRT seems to be absolute correct. What does the title of the section with the final table say? The hidden or blind energy of the universe. Thus which part of the overall energy is the real one? It is 0.115*10exp(+53) kg , it is the actual overall mass of matter. Let us calculate the number of H-atoms using the mediating mass. This amounts to 5.034*10exp(+79) atoms. The 3D-model has less atoms than the model of GRT. The ratio is 5.034/5.468 = 0.9206, while one expected a ratio of 1. So what is wrong? It is the question for the next section. Conclusion: The idea of Archimedes law was not too bad, but in first instance it turned out differently, but in the section "the age of the universe" Archimedes shows up again.
THE ANGLE FOR THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAK INTERACTION FROM THE MACROSCOPIC BALANCE OF OVERALL ENERGY Let us first congratulate ourselves. The table in the section of the indirect proof for the hidden energy… etc. is correct, and considering the number of suppositions and hypothesis in this graviton theory, it is absolutely fabulous. However both the theories are correct and the 3D-graviton theory should be a sub class of GRT, because GRT is 4D-time space, while the new theory is in absolute 3D-space and independent of time, a pure three dimensional object. Consequently, the ratio found in the previous section, should be one and not 0.9206. Now where are we wrong? Or is our 3D-object too simplified? The Einstein gravitons behave like vectors, but we only know their magnitude and only one (direction) of the three degrees of freedom these could have. In fact the Einstein graviton is a one dimensional quantum object. And this one dimensional object is also a measure for the mediating mass. See, scrutinizing the precession of the mediating mass. However there seems nothing wrong with the derivation of the mediating mass. The mediating mass as a quantum object disguised as a generator of accelerated quanta of empty space, one should realize, is a tremendous complex process in nature. Apparently it matches to the simple properties of Einstein’s gravitons, but the dynamics of empty space around the mediating mass for the electromagnetic behaviour of the electron and the proton should be ingenious and certainly complicated. So obviously, it must be the reason why there is a deviation from the factor one. Having realized this, one can try to express the factor in an angle. It is determined that the cos θw = 0.9206, with θw 22.985 degrees. This inspires us to guess it is the angle for the weak interaction of the elector magnetic quantum mechanics between barons and leptons. Now one is in a mess; how can we prove it?? Note that the ratio between overall energy and the real energy of matter in the table is : F1 = 0.915 / 0.115 = 7.96 (neglecting 10exp(+53)) A majority of the total energy is blind energy coming from the precession due to the process of acceleration. The ratio between the rest mass and the mediating mass is: F2 = 1837.104 / 250.81 = 7.325. The ratio F1/F2 gives the weak factor again of 0.9206. Note, further that the overall energy of the two identical 3D-quantum universes was used in the above calculations and not the energy of a single quantum universe. Astonishing is that ¼ Mtot c² is the energy stored in absolute 3D-space, while the other part according to the four dimensional tensor divergence should be in time (circulating in the phase space of time). It is not a proof but very plausible that we have evidence of the weak angle in the balance of the macroscopic energies of our cosmos. The situation is too pat. Especially, if one considers the neutron as the counter part of the proton electron and neutrino. The neutron is always decaying in the electron and proton and not in other mesons or leptons or barons plus eventual the neutrinos. It is clear that the neutron as a stable baron cannot fit in the 3D-space generated by Einstein’s quanta. The conclusion is that some serious detailed physics should be done to prove the weak angle from the overall balance of energy. Any way one is entitled to have confidence in the 3D-quantum theory of gravitons, for all the hypothesis and the suppositions are confirmed by an independent check, proving the self-consistency of the theory. This is really over the moon! See, the list of suppositions and hypotheses summarized in the last section of this chapter. A last question. How accurate is the assessment of the weak angle from the macroscopic calculations? A simple determination for the accuracy is given by the ratio of rest masses of the neutron and the H-atom.
A more complicated answer follows from the consideration, if the universal constant of gravity should be constant, because the 3D-quantum universe looses inertia due to atomic transmutation during evolution. Probably G is not affected, for it is maintained by feedback in the 3D-phase space of time and the existence of the black mirrors, but one is not sure for 100 %. Secondly, the weak angle could have been changed minutely, due to the conversion of conjugated matter into normal matter during the evolution of the early universe (the formation of black mirrors). The theory of 3D-gravitons composed from Einstein’s gravitons is in fact static (steady state) and has not any link to the evolution of the universe. Although naturally, one has the pyramid model available to develop this theory to time.
Having a quantum theory for accelerated empty space in three dimensions makes this theory independent of time, while the infinitely faraway 3D-space is determined by Hubble’s distance. Consequently one has only the size of our cosmos, but we do not know how this 3D-object comes into being. In a way it is disturbing, in another way it is a challenge to develop with the aid of GRT, a theory for the evolution of the early universe. On the other hand the cosmologies using Hubble’s constant for the constant, not accelerated expansion of the universe, could estimate the age of the universe. With the new theory for the accelerated expansion this seems not entirely possible, but a more complicated procedure is necessary. Now let us return to the problem of the twentieth century about the missing mass in our cosmos. The problem is reviewed in the appendix, see the problem of the missing mass in the universe reviewed in relation to the dark matter hypothesis. Most importantly about this problem is to know that it was carried by the dark matter hypothesis. With the new 3D-quantum theory one has to drop this hypothesis like a brick. It is obsolete. In the new theory the quanta of empty space are matched and determined by the rest mass or mediating mass of each kind of atoms. It makes the existence of any kind of other matter impossible. So what has this to do with the missing mass in our cosmos? The question of the missing mass is converted to the question of the age of the universe. In the twentieth century the missing mass was important in relation to the critical averaged density of our cosmos. In the new theory we know exactly the averaged density from the overall mass and the size of the universe, but the age is unknown. The early estimates of the missing mass with out the dark matter hypothesis were a factor of 10 to 100 below the critical one, while Hubble’s constant did not match with it. By using all available means of techniques of observation and including the mass of the neutrinos, one can possible determine that the maximum for the average density is about a factor of 10 less than the critical. This would mean the universe is 10 times older than the 14 billion years. An uncomfortable thought. But again, ask the question, what is the overall mass in the new theory compared to the standard cosmology of constant expansion? In the new theory, as is determined in the previous sections of chapter 7, the total mass in the universe is a factor of 7.9 less than the old theory. It means that our cosmos is a factor of 10 / 7.9 = 1.25 older than the 14 billion years or about 18 billion years of age. May be more if the average density is less than this factor of 10. Of course, the estimate of the average density from observations needs to be checked thoroughly. It is not a simple task in astronomy, for the evolution of our cosmos is obscured by the size of the quantum universe. The past is mixed with the accelerated expansion of empty space.
LIST OF CONCLUSIONS, HYPOTHESIES AND SUPPOSITIONS Since the proof of the self- consistency of the 3D-quantum theory, in one stroke all suppositions and postulates etc. are correct.
|