A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Inchworm]

The "fact" is that; if you don't see the matter of a star, after collapsing in a black hole, it's because it isn't there anymore, isn't it?

That's your assumption, not physicists' one. Physicists call it a singularity, and they do not presume what it is. It might as well be some kind of unknown concentrated matter. My other question is still unanswered though: why would a black hole keep deforming space differently than the star that created it?

[Andrex]

That's your assumption, not physicists' one. Physicists call it a singularity, and they do not presume what it is.

Which confirms that they know it's not "normal" matter. A "singularity" is the same "thing" they say existed at 10^-43 sec after time = zero (of which they don't know more either). But they know that a "singularity" is from what our universe emerged. That's quite a "hint" you've got there. You should go check Chandrasekhar limit and study it. Then continue the "process" bringing it right to its normal end (giving three limits to overcome: electronic -> neutronic -> quark/gluonic). That's all I can suggest.

My other question is still unanswered though: why would a black hole keep deforming space differently than the star that created it?

Your other question was formulated senseless; know it's understandable. So the answer is:

Black holes are produced only by very massive stars; but they don't "deform" space differently than other stars, planets, moons, atoms or even quarks.
The only difference is that their mass energy is sufficiently "strong" (intense enough) to back up the space metric right to its beginning at 10^-33 meter, when space started expanding. Less massive stars can't "push" that far back. It's very easy to understand if you understand what "mass energy" is.

To make it simpler (but maybe it won't work for you), if you fall to the "bottom" of a black hole, you'll travel more in a "time notion" than in a "space notion". Forget "wormholes" made from black holes; that is complete stupidity.

[Inchworm]

But they know that a "singularity" is from what our universe emerged.

Yes, but they don't say it's nothing, and you did.

Black holes are produced only by very massive stars; but they don't "deform" space differently than other stars, planets, moons, atoms or even quarks.

Why are the stars moving faster around a galaxy than planets do around the stars then? If the deformation of space had the same shape whatever the central body, scientists wouldn't be looking for dark matter. You said it was due to distance, but you did not say why. How can a deformation spreading radially from a center disobey the inverse square root law?

[Andrex]

Yes, but they don't say it's nothing, and you did.

It's not my fault if you never used a calendar in order to be able to place things chronologically. I never said that a "singularity" was "nothing". If I was "conversing" as you do, I could say that you said a "singularity" was a "small step" between two particles, I'm beginning to be fed up by your "jumping jack" nonsenses. Try, at least, to have a pennyworth of logic.

Why are the stars moving faster around a galaxy than planets do around the stars then?

I don't know if they do, and I wouldn't know if they did. Further more I don't even know why a rabbit runs faster than a turtle; and frankly, I don't care. I consider it as a "fact" observed.

If the deformation of space had the same shape whatever the central body,

The "deformation" has no shape. Can't you imagine what the collapse of the metric is?

You said it was due to distance, but you did not say why.

I couldn't say that the "shape" was due to the distance, since I keep repeating that it is not a "shape".

Let me say it another way: the size of the "metric" of "altered" space gets gradually greater, further away we "measure" from the center. BECAUSE the points of space gradually recover their expanding size until the distance from the center makes them lose their "passiveness" (stop being "blocked" by mass energy, because escaping from the "gluon topology" of galaxies) and regain speed, up to the status of becoming expanding "flat" space, once again.

How can a deformation spreading radially from a center disobey the inverse square root law?

Because the inverse square law is a notion imagined by a human brain that needed to reassure itself in front of what it was observing in nature. Nature itself is "as it can be" with "what is disponible". It doesn't follow laws established by anything else than what is possible at each moments. A tree doesn't grow in ocean water without having an island to install itself. Is that a law? I think it's more "nature" than "law".

Now if "laws of nature" reassure you more than "nature" itself, good for you; but you've got a problem with rationality.

[Inchworm]

The inverse square root law is a topology law, and you're saying that the deformation of space is a topological deformation, so to me, this deformation should work the same whatever the scale. You cannot just say that observations do not need explanations, you have to provide a mechanism, otherwise your ideas won't be useful. It took a while, but I know more about them now, and I know more about cosmology too. Thanks for the ride, I think we will stay on our position from now on so I find it useless to continue. Have fun, that's the main ideas with ideas anyway! :0)

[Andrex]

and you're saying that the deformation of space is a topological deformation

I'm saying that the "alteration" of space is at the metric level; stop painting pictures.

You cannot just say that observations do not need explanations, you have to provide a mechanism, otherwise your ideas won't be useful.

And to whom does the universe has to be useful?

Just asking this question might put you on the track to discover what's behind the universe's mechanism.

It took a while, but I know more about them now, and I know more about cosmology too.

You should study them a bit instead of "conversing" about it. You would be less liable to make mistakes.

Thanks for the ride, I think we will stay on our position from now on so I find it useless to continue.

From the questions you were asking recently, I don't think you got much improvements out of all this to supply your merry-go-round.

Have fun, that's the main ideas with ideas anyway!

Some people have fun "conversing"; I'm not sure it's worth it. On the other hand, always repeating the same notion with different words and phrases, clarified my way of explaining things. Thanks.

[Inchworm]

And to whom does the universe has to be useful?

I think the universe developed by hazard and coincidence, and that we developed by mutation and natural selection, so it's the same kind of mechanism for both kinds of evolution, and you seemed to agree with that here and there. There is no absolute use for things that developed out of that kind of mechanism: things that already exist depend on what developed before them to go on existing, and things that do not yet exist depend on hazard to start existing. It's inertia that forces anything to keep on existing, what we call instinct for living things, and instinct is a subconscious phenomenon that comes from the inertia of the things we are made of, and that inertia comes from the atoms and particles those things are made of. So what's the real use for all that inertia? Keep on doing things, that's all, and that's precisely what we are doing now.

It's interesting to see that you don't believe in inertia on one hand, and that you believe in speed on the other. Keeping a direction and a speed for a massive body is the very definition of inertia, and that inertia certainly comes from the inertia of the particles it is made of. By negating that forces exist, you're negating those created by your own inertia, which to me, is the very use of our existence.

[Andrex]

I think the universe developed by hazard and coincidence,

Which means that you didn't think about it too deeply.

and that we developed by mutation and natural selection,

You have to think a bit more on the subject "natural mutation"; you might find a "law" behind it.

so it's the same kind of mechanism for both kinds of evolution,

Simply because there's only one single "law" behind what you call a "mechanism".

things that already exist depend on what developed before them to go on existing, and things that do not yet exist depend on hazard to start existing.

What is sub-lined is not logical. To go on existing you have to adapt yourself to your own environment; your ancestors have nothing to do with your environment. Adapting to their own was enough for them "to go on existing".

As for hazard that is simply a "belief".

It's inertia that forces anything to keep on existing, what we call instinct for living things,

So, fighting for your life, you call that "inertia". You're a lucky man.

and that inertia comes from the atoms and particles those things are made of.

So you still hang on to that "static universe" with inertia governing atoms and particles. How can particles be "inert" and make "small steps"? Remember? Stopping -> starting -> accelerating -> decelerating and finally stopping again before another "start". That's inertia indeed.

So what's the real use for all that inertia? Keep on doing things, that's all,

Wow! Your logic is baffling.

It's interesting to see that you don't believe in inertia on one hand, and that you believe in speed on the other.

Like the inertia of a car going at 100 m/hr? You would probably explain that by "...because we have two hands!".

Keeping a direction and a speed for a massive body is the very definition of inertia,

Try : "Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion; this includes changes to its speed, direction, or state of rest." The "state of rest" is the basic notion of inertia. The first experiences made where on immobile objects; afterward the concept was applied also to all steady motion with a constant velocity.

By negating that forces exist, you're negating those created by your own inertia, which to me, is the very use of our existence.

Oh my God!!! Living without faith is impossible; isn't it?

[Andrex]

Just found an article were a scientist says that what was attributed to dark matter was "space-time curvature" produced "gravitational lenses" which deforms the shape of galaxies behind the cluster.

An important article to read:

http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2017/01 ... ainst.html

[Andrex]

Orbitals

Since the universe is “all that exists”, it is difficult, I should say: impossible, for me to study it in a compartmental process. To me, studying the universe has to be done in a “universal” process. Which means that everything; every event, is related to one another. Nothing is explained by itself without the implication of everything else in the universe. And the explanation starts when our universe first burst in a simple “explosion” of “space”, called “expansion”.

The expansion of the universe is the gradual “spreading” of whatever volume of “space” that appeared at its beginning, at 10^-43 sec after “time = zero”. In regard to this fact, we can consider that:

The actual universe is the expanded structural result of whatever fundamental structure which was formed at its beginning. Which means that these structures appeared through “forming stages” during the evolution of our universe.

The “stage” that corresponds to our actual material world starts with the atom; that is an evidence. Whatever is not an atom, isn’t part of our structured material world, but is part of what preceded, when our world wasn’t organized (structured) yet.

This being established, we can now describe the structures of our material world.

The simplest atom has a nucleus plus an electron around it; and the most complex atom has a nucleus plus seven electronic layers around it; layers in which electrons orbit. That is the "general" structure we find at the microscopic level of our material world.

At the macroscopic level, we find that our solar system is composed of eight planets orbiting around the sun. If we transpose the atomic structure to the solar system, it doesn’t “fit”… unless we first start by adjusting both structures.

This means that we have to compare apples to apples; meaning that we can start the comparison only after having given an electron to the nucleus; in other words, only after having given Mercury to the Sun, to act as its electron. Then both structures are identical; and the solar system has now seven “orbitals” just as the atom has.

This could seem like "cheating" a bit, because in former notions of the atom, the electron of an hydrogen atom is the first orbiting level of an atom (quantum dynamic nuances that notion a bit). But, in fact, hydrogen is not the "first" atom of our universe; it's more the last result of preceding structural events. The "real" first atom should be the deuterium; because it is "exactly" composed of all preceding separated developed particles: a proton, a neutron an an electron; and since a neutron is a proton "containing" an electron (nor separated), Mercury has to be considered as part of the nucleus in our comparison. But the number of "levels" is not the main point; the existence of "levels" is the important "fact".

I admit that this way of making such comparisons between microcosm and macrocosm could be a futile exercise; but you must admit that the term “could be” means, just as much, “could not be”; and either way, could supply information. So what comes if we continue?

By doing this first comparison we admitted that our material world is composed of two different levels we called macro and microcosm.

We also admitted that each of those two levels are structured in sub-levels called “orbitals”.

Since those levels and sub-levels were structured by the “space” expansion of the universe, we must ask ourselves: has there been additional levels produced by this expansion?

The answer is obvious. The next structured level, following a “solar system level”, is a “galaxy level”.

And this means that, normally, the “galaxy” level should have the same structure as the “solar system level”, but much more “expanded”. In other words, galaxies should also be structured in seven “orbitals”, just like atoms and solar systems.

Curiously, if you look at a photo of M 31, you can “see” that the matter of the galaxy is distributed in “orbiting levels” which shows that the galaxy is definitely “structured” in different levels. Are there seven levels? This, we cannot see; because what we actually “see” is the distribution of “matter”; and not the structure of the “altered space”.

Here we must take care not to lose track of what, exactly, we are describing, which is the structures containing our material world. And since the matter of our world is unevenly distributed in space, we are, in fact, describing the way this matter is distributed.

The “distribution” we are considering is, then, related to the structure of that distribution; which means (since “matter” occupy “space”), the structure of the “space” containing “matter”; and not the structure of matter distributed in space. There's a "nuance" in both notions.

And has we know, the space that contains matter is “altered” space, this "fact" definitely brings us to the conclusion that “altered space” is structured in seven levels as observed in a solar system or in an atom.

Coming back to consider the atom, we get the information that each orbiting level has its own energy to define its orbital limits. We should find the same condition to limit the orbitals of bigger structures.

And we do easily find these limits in our solar system by considering the “orbital speed” of each planets, and we can also find differences in the “orbital speed” of stars in a galaxy. It is then evident that an orbiting “corridor” is defined by a distinct energy level; and since “speed” determines where an object orbits, the limits of an orbiting corridor is defined by the intensity of the kinetic energy “acceptable” in that “corridor”. This observation confirms that “speed” is related to the metric of the space environment. For example, light speed is related to the distance of 10^-33 meter (basic metric of space) traveled in 10^-43 sec (basic metric of time). Which is a more "precise" description of light speed than 299 792 458 meters per second. Furthermore, the "basic" measurements of light speed show a difference between "length of time" and "length of space". The length of time is shorter than the length of space; which seems very important to me. I'll have to explain to myself this difference eventually.

The galaxy level supplies us with an additional information: the orbital levels around a nucleus, a Sun or a center of galaxy have different “spreading”; the farthest is the orbiting level from the center, the more it spreads in space between its limits making a larger “corridor” for orbiting objects, thus “accepting” the same “speed” in a larger portion of space around a gravity center.

Which would explain the observation of stars “going too fast” in a too large portion of space around a galaxy. We should take a break before accepting the existence of unobservable “dark matter” to explain observations.

[Andrex]

Time and space

One comment that I wrote previously captured my attention:

“Light speed is related to the distance of 10^-33 meter (basic metric of space) traveled in 10^-43 sec (basic metric of time). Which is a more "precise" and “exact” description of light speed than 299 792 458 meters per second. Furthermore, the "basic" measurements of light speed show a difference between "length of time" and "length of space". The length of time is shorter than the length of space; which seems very important to me. I'll have to explain to myself this difference eventually.”

So today will be the “time” to try do so. Let’s get to it.

a) Planck’s epoch lasted 10^-43 sec.

b) Light speed is 10^-33 meter per 10^-43 sec (distance per time).

Which would mean that Planck’s epoch lap of time “passed” at light speed. And I cannot agree to this because Planck’s epoch had to start at zero speed and zero time and gradually attain light speed. Which would mean that the speed involved during part of the Planck's epoch would have to be faster than light speed in order to balance at light speed at 10^-43 sec. Something I refuse to accept as possible.

On the other hand, what appeared at 10^-43 sec after time = zero was only a bit more than half the energy and surface of what was produced during Planck’s epoch. Let's see, once again, what really happened:

To resume the event as clearly as possible, the rotating surface, issued from the original uni-dimensional point, developed during Planck’s epoch, had just attained the size of 10^-33 meter, at 10^-43 sec on the universal clock, when it was ripped in two.

This “incident” happened because the centrifugal effect had been expressed (appeared) before the centripetal effect and, since the difference of strength between both effects had augmented exponentially just the same as both effects had, the centrifugal effect was now so “strong” that the centripetal effect couldn’t hold the surface in one piece anymore. Consequently, one half of the points composing the total surface and representing the centrifugal expression of Planck’s surface where projected in all directions, giving a “volume” to this “half surface”. It disappeared momentarily and reappeared as soon as its diameter re-attained 10^-33 meter with all those points, spinning in a counter clockwise direction, still projected in all directions. That's when our universe started expanding.

As for the other half, representing the centripetal expression of the same surface, all its points where reassembled in a “new formed surface” that adopted the counter spin direction of the previous surface. While doing so, it adopted the expressing characteristic of “reassembling around a center point”, which was in the same evolution pattern as “centripetal effect”, and started to expand its own surface by rotating on itself in a clockwise direction. This rotation continued to augment exponentially the energy of that new surface, until it reached the same diameter of 10^-33 meter, which permitted it to reappear in our universe.

By this time, the points projected everywhere during the previous ripping of Planck’s surface had augmented the volume of our new born universe when, at 10^-36 sec, appeared the new centripetal expressing surface, with its diameter of 10^-33 meter. That is the instant where a surface with a dimeter of 10^-33 meter, presenting the characteristic of “reassembling around a center point”, first appeared in the volume of our tridimensional universe.

One thing is to be noted in all these events, which is that the “half part” of the Planck’s surface that was ripped in two and projected in all directions, was not exactly the same “size” as the “half part” that returned into Planck’s era. It was slightly “bigger”. The reason is rather simple to understand. The event that provoked the “ripping” of the former surface, was the insertion of a last uni-dimensional point cause by the centrifugal effect. This added point was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” and that’s what made the surface ripped in two parts, one part being necessarily "bigger" than the other one.

But now we have to consider the possibility that the energy of that last “straw” was the compilation of all energies developed during Planck’s epoch. In this option, we have to accept that the surface that ripped, was in fact, still the “single original uni-dimensional point” that had adopted two successive expressions, centrifugal and centripetal, when starting its rotational motion which increased its surface. This option explains that two kinds of “energy” were developed within that surface; one centrifugal, the other centripetal.

We must note that "centripetal" and "centrifugal" are characteristics given to "motion"; so the energy involved had to be kinetic energy. This tells us that there are two kinds of kinetic energy; one that is directed toward "everywhere" (expansion) and another that is directed toward "one single point" (which is not gravitation but its effect results in gravitation).

The first kind of energy appeared primarily in our universe expressing its expanding motion. The second one appeared later, provoking inflation and expressing a gravitational “notion”. The central pointed directional “motion” would become “real” only when would appear the first massive three-dimensional particles, the Top and antiTop quarks. This center pointed motion would be responsible for the gradual decreasing metric of a gravitational volume of space where quarks found themselves.

So, evidently, when the first kind of energy appeared in our universe, it was stronger than the second kind that went back in Planck’s era. But when that second kind of energy reappeared later in our universe, it was now a lot stronger than the first appeared one; because it had continued to gain energy by rotating while the first kind spend that time expanding in our universe.

The additional time spent rotating by the second kind of energy (centripetal) lasted from 10^-43 sec to 10^-36 sec; and the speed of that rotation was done at light speed during that lap of time.

So it become easy enough to understand why, in Einstein formula E = Mc2, we have the Mass (energy) multiplied by light speed square. But then, the total formula would represent the sole energy of Mass; not the total energy in the universe since, in this formula, is missing the initial expansion energy that first appeared at 10^-43 sec. That energy which is responsible for the expansion of our universe. And since that energy is not compiled in the actual total energy of the universe, it is very possible that this is the energy that we interpret as “dark energy”.

And if this is the case, the energy of the total universe should be presented as: E = ec + Mc2 (Total energy = (expansion energy X light speed) + (Mass energy X light speed square).

Once again, by focusing on the event happening successively, I lost sight of my main "problem" and I forgot to keep my attention on the difference between the time lap of Planck’s era and the “fact” that this time lap is the same it takes for light speed to cover the first distance that appeared in our universe. I’m almost certain that it has an implication of significant importance in our understanding of time and distances. Let’s hope I’ll be able to succeed to focus the next time I address the problem.

On the other hand I might have explained part of the problem unconsciously, since at the instant of 10^-43 seconds, there was at least twice as more energy involved than what was expressed by expansion. So the lap of time accorded to Planck’s epoch might have been sufficient to attain light speed even if it had started at speed zero.

But it still doesn’t explain the length difference between the distance and the time lap; and since in my mind distance and time are identical, I still have a problem.

[Andrex]

Structure of a galaxy:

Can I suggest that this would be the "space" structure of a galaxy?

[Andrex]

So, according to what we know about the history of the universe, whatever existed while it was microscopic, was expanded in a macroscopic proportion. Let’s see what happened while its microscopic history:

1-At 10^-43 sec, a volume of space appeared and started expanding (neutrinos spinning counter clockwise and being projected in every directions from everywhere).



2-At 10^-36 sec, inside the expanding space, appeared a surface particle, spinning clockwise and holding more energy in itself than the space surrounding it. We called that particle, the gluon boson; and it had a diameter of 10^-35 meter. Its main characteristic was its topology directing everything to its center. In other word, it had a “magnetic” characteristic. This is when our universe became “electromagnetic”. The surface gluon was "dragged" by expansion at light speed.



3-Everything else, afterward, happened inside that gluon surface, while the rest of electromagnetic space continued expanding.

a) Both sides of the gluon surface where ripped from each other by the expansion of surrounding space. We now had “mirror pictures” of the gluon surface, still always having the same characteristic of directing everything to its center.



b) The half surfaces, being unbalanced by their missing “side”, had their center “pushed in” by their inner energy which recoiled the surface and formed three-dimensional particles ( volumes). The push of the “inner” energy on the center point, “blocked” the expanding movement of that new particle in its attained “metric, while the surrounding metric of space continued expanding. That is when the “mass energy” of a particle was first manifested in our universe. The result was that the surrounding space of the massive particles was “altered”.

Both mirror surface sides underwent the same transformation, producing “mirror particles”, we call today Top and antiTop quarks. When this transforming event happened, it created a vibration that traveled through space at light speed. That vibration was electromagnetic and possessed the greater frequency (energy) possible. We call it an electromagnetic gamma wave.



4-The forming of quarks proceeded within the initial surface of the gluon; and since the “occupation” of space was doubled by the splitting of the original surface, both quarks occupied a volume of space within that doubled surface.



5-The expanding space, surrounding both volumes of quarks, continued expanding around those volumes installed on the gluon surface. That expansion was continuously decreasing the density of the surrounding space; so both quarks had to adjust their own density in order to “survive” in that continually decreasing density. They then had to release part of their own “inner” energy in order to attain “equilibrium” in this continually decreasing density.

In order to release “inner” energy, they had to “open” themselves. The only way possible was to “split” in two parts inside their own volume while expelling energy in the process and produce, this way, two lesser density particles more adapted to the environment. Both quarks adopted the same process and made appear, inside their own “volume”, two new quark, antiquark particles having less “mass energy”. Two electric charges were manifested: 1/3 and 2/3, either positive or negative.



6-surrounding density continued to decrease and those less massive quarks had to adjust once more, using the same process of releasing energy while producing new quark, antiquark particles, always inside their own volume.

But what I explained here is in regard to the process developed as a result of the expanding universe. A lot more was produced by that process. In the end, the result for quark particles was the three generations of particles described in the standard model:



Note 1) anti particles having contrary electric charges are not shown here.

Note 2) the “photon” particle presented in this picture is simply the quanta of electromagnetic energy released by quarks in our electromagnetic universe when decaying to adapt to their environment. In fact the photon quanta "merges" with the environment; it doesn't really "travel".

7-Meanwhile, the electromagnetic gamma waves (vibration) we talked about previously, were traveling in all directions through space and sometimes collided into each other. Those collisions produced electrons and positrons which then were submitted to the same process in regard of the decreasing density of their environment. The standard model presents them in the following distribution:



Note 1) the Z and W bosons could simply be the quantum of energy released by adapting electrons (in fact, first Tau, then Muon) to the energetic density of their environment; just like the photons from massive quarks are.

Note 2) Sorry if I didn’t have to use any “magical forces” coming out of nowhere; but as you can see for yourself, it wasn’t necessary at all.

Now let me present the structural result of all those incrusted events, inside one another, in macrocosmic space. We simply get three generations of “altered” space, exactly as what was obtained in our microcosmic space:



Naturally, when mass energy increases its pressure on a center of gravity, by matter accretion on a cosmic object, the added pressure can increase to the point of pushing back the center of gravity to its origin; meaning the “singularity” it was projected from at the beginning of the universe. This event results in the formation of a black hole.

As for the actual distribution of matter in filaments in our universe, just look at a COBE picture and imagine all blue parts expanding at light speed during 13, 7 billion years:



You will inevitably get red filaments distributed in blue empty flat space giving the impression that gravity reassembled galaxies in clusters and super clusters.

I guess all what is left for me to say is:
I rest my case.

[Andrex]

Standard model

Following my previous post, I am oblige to present the graphic of the standard model a bit differently than the official graphic.

First, the quarks origin is from the Gluon; and secondly, the older generation of quarks should be the first to appear; which means that they are of the first generation. So the following should be the graphic acceptable for Quarks according to reality and chronology:



Note: The photon is a Gamma photon that appears when a gluon “decays” into two quarks (Top/antiTop), which what happens in 75% of the cases.

And, naturally, the same correction is needed for the Leptons graphic:



Note: In both graphics, we can find the chronology of the appearance of each particles in our universe by considering their “mass” number. The reason is that these masses where adopted by each particles to adapt to their environment, which kept decreasing in density because of the expansion of the universe.

This way we find that the Bosons Z and W appeared between the arrival of the Top quarks and the bottom quarks during the first generation of quarks. That moment was way before the appearance of the first generation of leptons with the Tau particle.

As for the neutrinos, their mass is not specified; only the upper margin is. Which doesn’t mean that neutrinos have mass; they could “change flavor” (oscillate) because they simply adapt themselves to the électron, Muon or Tau that they associate with. Up until today we know that the sum of the three neutrino masses (if it exists) must be less than one millionth that of the electron. Which means not even 1 million times less than 0.511 MeV/c2. That would be less than 0.000000511 MeV/c2.

It is important to know that the existence of a neutrino mass allows the existence of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment, in which case neutrinos could interact electromagnetically; however, no such interaction has been discovered.

Since the neutrino does not interact electromagnetically, and is defined quantum mechanically by a wave function, it does not have a size in the same sense as everyday objects. Which, by the way, concurs with my “surface” neutrino.

Neutrinos are the last particle that inhabit the “unknown” that scientist are exploring today. To me, the most interesting research is in the emission of supernovae neutrinos.

When neutrinos from supernova 1987A were detected, the neutrino signal from the supernova arrived at earth several hours before the arrival of the first electromagnetic radiation. The reason is that photons took a lot more time to pass through the matter of the exploding star than the neutrino did. Photons interacted with matter while neutrinos didn't.

Currently, the question of whether or not neutrinos have mass cannot be decided; their speed is indistinguishable from the speed of light. But in order to make space "exist", they have to travel I bit less than the speed of light.

The number of neutrinos counted from the burst was also consistent with a total neutrino energy of 2.2×10^46 joules, which was estimated to be nearly all of the total energy of the supernova. “Nearly all” means that the only energy left in the neutron star, after the burst, was the energy contained in the neutrons (nucleus without orbiting electrons) forming the star. All the "atomic energy" around the nucleus (gravitational energy) had been rejected in space.

Note that by using the term “gravitational energy”, scientists unconsciously admit that what keeps electrons around a nucleus is “gravitation”. Furthermore, in saying that the “gravitational energy” is expelled by the manifestation of neutrinos, they admit that this energy is kinetic.

What I would like to indicate here is that all that energy, that is expelled from the supernova by neutrinos, is the “inner” energy of the object. In other words, the energy that I call “mass energy”.

The event is that the “inner” kinetic energy directed toward a single central point, being expelled by the fact that the star collapses on itself, is the “mass energy” contained in the space between nucleus of atoms; in other words, the energy of the electronic levels around a nucleus.
When one electron is pressed against a proton provoking the fusion to produce a neutron, all the energized space between atom nucleus had already collapse, and the energy, instead of being directed toward “the center of the object”, had been ejected toward “everywhere”. In other word, what scientists call the “gravitational energy” had been transformed in “expansion energy”.

This could explain why neutrino burst occurs in succeeding pulses; since each pulses would be a consequence of crossing successive Chandrasekhar limits while collapsing.

Note that this event could also explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe since, by this process, “expansion energy” is currently added in the universe.

It’s obvious that neutrino research promises extraordinary discoveries and clarifications for the near future.

[Andrex]

Neutrinos


What are they and where are they coming from? And most importantly: do they "respond" to gravitation?

From what we know, a majority of the neutrinos (but not all) floating around were born around 15 billion years ago, which brings us at the birth of the universe. Since this time, the universe has continuously expanded and cooled, and neutrinos have just kept on going. Theoretically, there are now so many neutrinos that they constitute a cosmic background radiation whose temperature is 1.9 degree Kelvin (-271.2 degree Celsius).

Other neutrinos are constantly being produced from nuclear power stations, particle accelerators, nuclear bombs, general atmospheric phenomena, and during the births, collisions and deaths of stars, particularly the explosions of supernovae. And if this is true, "energy" is being constantly produced in our universe; which displeases a basic law of physics that wants that the total energy of the universe is an "invariant". So we must take care in using the verb "produced".

Neutrinos can interact via the neutral current (involving the exchange of a Z boson) or charged current (involving the exchange of a W boson) weak interactions. Which would mean that they appeared in our universe, before electromagnetism. It also means that Z and W bosons are the same except for the electric charge. Note that a Z boson is the same as a photon boson except for the mass. Finally, Z and W bosons are the same particles as photons except for each charge or/and mass.

In a neutral current interaction, the neutrino leaves the detector after having transferred some of its energy and momentum to a target particle. All three neutrino flavors can participate regardless of the neutrino energy. However, no neutrino flavor information is left behind. Which could mean that no diminution of "mass energy" is involved. This evidently supports a massless neutrino particle.

In a charged current interaction (which means that this could not happen before our universe became electromagnetic), the neutrino transforms into its partner lepton (electron, muon, or tau). However, if the neutrino does not have sufficient energy to create its heavier partner's mass, the charged current interaction is unavailable to it. Solar and reactor neutrinos have enough energy to create electrons. Most accelerator-based neutrino beams can also create muons, and a few can create taus.

However, experiments have found possible evidence for neutrinos oscillating with a wavelength that doesn’t match any combination of the known neutrino masses.

While most particles get their mass from the Higgs boson, some scientists believe the neutrino gets its mass from another, as yet undiscovered particle. That would be “unnatural” in the evolution of the universe; because there cannot be more than one basic single process to “create” particles with their characteristics. Magic doesn’t exist; things don’t come out of anywhere or nowhere. In other words, “probability” is an “ordained” randomness; not a “free-for-all” randomness. Which doesn’t mean that I accept the Higgs boson explanation.

The Big Bang produced neutrinos —particles that are still zooming through space yet today. Atomic power plants produce neutrinos, the fusion furnace of our sun pumps out neutrinos and when a star goes supernova, the process generates an enormous spurt of neutrinos.

The Standard Model predicted the existence of neutrinos. But it also predicted that the lightweight particles would have no mass at all. It could be that neutrinos are the only fundamental particles that gain their mass from a source other than the just-discovered Higgs field. In reality, we have to note that the Higgs field wasn’t “discovered”; it was “imagined” and then “attributed” to a signature observed at 125 GeV mainly because it was "needed". The observation wasn't really objective.

Neutrinos could have other strange properties as well. They could turn out to be identical to antineutrinos, their antimatter counterparts. Which would mean that they do not have an anti-particle.

Recently, an experiment built in a vast slab of Antarctic ice has doubled its count of "cosmic neutrinos" from outer space, by searching for arrivals passing through the planet from the north.

(Science & Environment Fastest ever neutrino among slew of fresh findings. By Jonathan WebbScience reporter, BBC News)

The team announced, in June 2014, the highest-energy neutrino ever detected with at least 2,600 trillion electronvolts (TeV) of energy - hundreds of times more than protons inside the Large Hadron Collider. The previous record was 2,000 TeV.

The neutrinos from space, offer clues about mysterious, violent sources of radiation beyond our own galaxy. “Mysterious” is a bit dramatic since we know that the most violent source of radiation is nothing else than the Big bang.

Over the course of measurements taken between mid-2008 and mid-2010, some 300 GRBs (Gamma-ray-bursts) were recorded - but IceCube scientists detected none of the eight or so neutrinos that they predicted would be associated with those events.

GRBs are not completely out of the running as the source of the highest energy cosmic rays we see; perhaps the neutrinos are not produced in the numbers that physicists expect. Nevertheless…

Neutrinos have mass, but the mass and the flavors don't necessarily correspond. Particle physicists talk about "mixing" to describe the weird morphing of neutrino masses and flavors; and since mass is directly directed to flavor, important questions arise. Furthermore, different types of neutrinos have different masses, but scientists do not know how these masses compare to one another; mainly because those masses are too small.

The mass of a neutrino must weigh at least a million times less than an electron which equals: 0.000000511 MeV/c2; and really means: at least less than 0.000000000000511 eV/c2, eV being 10^−19 joule. This mass would then really be, at least, next to “nothing”.

Although there is now evidence for a diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux, no point sources of neutrinos have been identified yet.

The energy distribution and arrival direction of the astrophysical events as well as other gamma-ray and cosmic-ray measurements provide valuable information for the search of the origin of the astrophysical neutrino flux. But there is no point-source structure visible by eye.

There are several classes of astrophysical sources which deserve special consideration; however, all of them give rise to new problems and contradictions. In fact, all these source models and neutrino flux predictions have large uncertainties. The only conclusion for now is: no evidence for neutrino point sources has been found yet.

The neutrino has half-integer spin (½ħ) and is therefore a fermion. Also being leptons, neutrinos have been observed to interact through only the weak force (which doesn't really mean anything), although it is assumed that they also interact gravitationally. As for this interaction with gravity, the conclusion is rather simple; massless or not, if gravitation consist in a decrease in the metric of space, there’s no question that they interact. They cannot do otherwise, just as photons.

Finally, we have to remember that all neutrinos observed where "left handed" neutrinos.

And that’s about all we know as from today.

[Andrex]

Profiling the Universe.

Electric charge process

What do we observe?

At the Quark level:

Gluon = no charge (no mass)
Top Quark = positive charge
AntiTop quark = negative charge

At the Boson level:

Photon = no charge (no mass)
Z boson = no charge (but enormous mass)
W boson = positive or negative charge (said to be particle/antiparticle; but...)

At the Lepton level:

Neutrinos = no charge
Electrons (Muons, Taus) = negative charge

The “starting” point is always: “no charge”. Besides this fact, those starting “no charged” particles also have “no mass” (which points out that the massive Z boson is not a "normal" starting point).

The next step seems to be: the previous single “no charge” particle transforms itself into: Two particles (pro and anti) with equal mass but opposite charges (which brings out another "abnormality", now in the W boson particles that have different masses).

So the "normal" 3rd step results like being: One particle (pro and anti) with same mass and opposite charge,

The seeming last (4th) steps looks to be: a particle with negative charge (with a "normal" antiparticle).

As we can see the only particles that are "abnormal" to the standard model "basic process" are the bosons. Only because they are identified to an "abnormal concept": Newton's "force" concept that evolved in four fundamental forces (interactions) which, at least, one (original Newton's) is proven not being a "force". Making clear that this notion of "interactions/forces" is based on an erroneous concept.

So the process that produces “electric charges” occurs when a neutral charged gluon transforms itself in two massive particles (Top & antiTop quarks, 75% of the time). In other words, the characteristic “neutral” adopts the only "viable" possibility to evolve, by defining two equal opposite charge. Which is the same “process” that we saw during Planck’s epoch that defined the single event with both opposite centrifugal and centripetal effects. So the process, appearing after 10^-43 sec, is not a “new” process at the time; but is simply a repetition of the preceding process event. In reality, this is simply a process, issued from motion (manifestation), that permits to amplify the precision of the definition given to an “event”. It is this increase of precision that results in what we consider as “universal entropy”.

The process starts with a “neutral state” Zero at the beginning of Planck’s epoch; and follows by dividing itself into two opposite and complementary events: 1) centrifugal effect and 2) centripetal effect.

When the centrifugal effect is “delivered” from its not completely compensating opposite, it manifests itself in an expansion of a three-dimensional space, animated by its own kinetic (centripetal) energy accumulated during Planck’s epoch.

We observe that the process is also an evolution, since the bi-dimensional state of Planck’s epoch results in a three-dimensional volume of the actual universe.

We even observe this fact in the electrical charge of quarks results, which becomes either 2/3 or 1/3 (of second total unity from Planck's epoch divided by three) instead, like previously, of a first total unity from Planck's epoch divided by two (½ spin of Neutrinos). This ½ becomes the remained manifested relation between the spin of the particle in regard to the “rotation” of the total unity involved during Planck’s epoch.

Universe philosophy:

Knowing that the complete “path of evolution”, that is described in the “probability” process (observed today as Heisenberg uncertainty principle), is starting with an “impossibility state” which is “Zero”, and extending its evolution toward a “reality state” that is “One”, we have to admit that the “zero” starting points is not acceptable, since it represents an “impossibility of evolution” which would be the results of an absence of “whatever” (nothingness). So if subsequently we can observe “something” today, it means that the formal “absence of whatever” never could be, and that there had to be “something” that manifested itself. This “something” is what is called, in the “probability process”, a “non-yet-manifested” potentiality (we call "nothing"). And a potentiality is “some nothing” that “can be manifested” but is not, before becoming a “probability” (entering an uncertainty principle period of evolution).

So at the very beginning of Planck’s epoch, there was a “potentiality” (non-zero something) that started to manifest itself. That’s when that former “potentiality” became as “probability”.

This “probability” was the manifestation of an “evolving capacity” to, eventually, transform itself into a “possibility”; “possible” being more precise than “probable”.

So if we want to give the Planck’s epoch a specified characteristic, we can only say that it was a “probability epoch” that evolved (via uncertainty) in a “possibility era” (less uncertain), which started at 10^-43 second after “Time Zero”. That moment when was manifested the advent of our three-dimensional space-universe. We have to note that “Time” already existed in Planck’s epoch, since the epoch lasted 10^-43 second.

Ever since than “moment”, our universe has been a “possibility era” characterized by its gradual augmenting precision on defining which possibility is the exclusive one giving access to the “Reality”.

In order to “pin point” that single access to Reality, our universe experiences every possibility that presents itself while evolving. The “law” which governs this process is quite simple; it’s the law of “viability”. Whatever resulting state that proves to be “more viable” than the previous “state” is kept, to forward the “natural research” experience. What is not “viable” transforms itself in “energy”.

There were two “particles” made “viable” in the evolution until today; the first one is the proton with its charge of “1 positive”, and the second one is the electron with its “1 negative” charge. Both of these particles are “viable” longer than the actual age of our universe. Which means that the first proton or the first electron that appeared in our universe, could still be present and “living” even today.

The succeeding path of evolution, based on the same “viability principle” as previously, was carried forward by the presence of the “possibility” to produce a “neutral particle” (another “starting point”) that had a viability of about 15 minutes. It is called the Neutron particle. Its existence forced the universe to continue its evolution to insert this neutron particle in the “final reality” by letting it evolve in order to let it attain a nearly infinite viability equaled to both other “realized” particles. This is the current inquiry of the universe.

As we can see, the universal evolution process, in reality, is a “Top-down design” process, since it starts with a “general state” and breaks it down gradually to define it more precisely.

As for science, it takes the opposite/complementary evolution path; meaning the “bottom-up design” process, since it start with events it observes actually to gradually construct the original “general state”. But it must be remembered that evolution means “chronological events” and what is observed today wasn’t always there.

The solution to understanding the whole event is to succeed in installing “equilibrium” between both “Top-down” and “Bottom-up” processes. And to do so. We have to always remember that everything started with a “single state” and developed in increasing “fractions” of that single state; and not into increasing number of states.

Timewise, our universe is simply a continual single “present state” that defines itself in several more precise “present portions”, by using less than light-speed events motion. Different “present portions” which we represent ourselves as being past and future “sub-states” of the total and unique “present” universal time. The difference, for less than light speed moving entities, is that the portions of "future time" are still under the uncertainty principle while the "pass portions" are definite precisely.

But even so, the reality is that these time “sub-states” are simply “dissected time lengths” of the only possible path of evolution.

Just as if you consider a very small part of a circumference you will conclude that a it doesn't represent a circle but a "almost infinite polygon" you can call an infinigon".

[Andrex]

Taken from LISA (New astronomy)



https://www.elisascience.org/articles/n ... -astronomy

Sorry to say, but the following rectifications on those info are needed.

Info: Gravitational waves within general relativity

With his theories of relativity Einstein laid the foundation for much of modern physics. Fundamental ideas of his theories are:

• The speed of light is constant.

• Space, time and gravity are strongly connected to each other.

• Space and time are flexible. They change according to circumfluent mass: stationary mass changes space.

• Accelerating masses create gravitational waves - distortions in space-time that ripple outwards like waves on a pond.

In General Relativity gravity a) is no longer simply a force that pulls falling apples to the ground. Instead,b) gravity is geometry. The presence of matter alters the geometry of space and time, and the geometry in turn determines how matter and light moves. Einstein predicted in 1916 that c) space-time would be curved and that d) matter and light follow the curvature of space-time (geodesics). e) This was experimentally observed as early as in 1919 by Arthur Eddington.

Rectifications:

a) In fact, in General Relativity, gravitation is no longer a force at all!

b) Gravity is geometry; I agree; it’s geometry in the sense that it’s a gradual alteration of the metric of a space volume.

c) “space-time would be curved”; but space-time is not curved at all; it’s only the trajectory inside an volume of altered space’s metric that curves. The whole picture is that the density around a center of gravity is more "intense" than, further away, in "flat" space; because expansion decreases the density of "flat" space but doesn't apply in "altered space".

d) So that: “matter and light follow the “METRIC” of space-time; and not the "curvature" of space-time.

e) “This was experimentally observed as early as in 1919 by Arthur Eddington” but was far from being understood.

Gravitational wave astronomy:

According to Einstein´s general relativity, accelerated masses produce gravitational waves – perturbations of spacetime propagating at the speed of light through the universe, unhindered by intervening mass.

In that case, we might as well come back to the medieval “ether concept”.

The rest of the infos are “well wished” expectations or simply possible elucubrations; but nevertheless, very interesting.

Important note to make though: black hole “seed” is simply “gravitation”.

On the other hand, black hole’s different masses is a very fascinating subject of research.

[Andrex]

Origin of slower speed than light’s-peed

Let’s recall what I previously mentioned:



The surface gluon was "dragged" by expansion at light speed.

So the gluon speed is light-speed; which is a “fact”.



The push of the “inner” energy on the center point, “blocked” the expanding movement of that new particle in its attained “metric, while the surrounding metric of space continued expanding.

So the speed of the Massive particles was slowed down; which means slower than light-speed, and that’s another “fact”.

When this “transforming event” happened, it created a vibration that traveled through space at light speed. That vibration was electromagnetic and possessed the greater frequency (energy) possible. We call it an electromagnetic gamma wave.

Let’s try to represent this event in a drawing:



It’s easy to see that the massive particle’s speed was slowed down, while the resulted Gamma ray (up-down vibration in the electromagnetic environment) continued at light-speed. But it’s not easy to calculate the speed of a Top quark (or any quark for that matter) because quarks are not “free particles” in our actual universe.

Let’s see what has been found “special” about Top quarks?

To my point of view one of the most surprising, and also funny in a way, discovery is:

At Fermilab’s Tevatron, measurements by both of its collider experiments showed that the top quark prefers to be created in the same direction the proton beam is travelling. This measurement disagrees with predictions and could indicate new physical phenomena or it could just mean that the regular theory needs to be tweaked.

It might disagree with prediction, but then, this “fact” doesn’t disagree at all with what we’ve seen in our drawing. This “disagreement” is only related to something scientists don’t take in consideration. They are the one creating that “preference” by using a proton beam to create Top quarks. It is evident that this preference of Top quarks is bound to be related to the direction of a provoked motion such as a “proton beam traveling”. But it would hardly be the same where expansion was obstructed equally on all sides. The question, then, becomes:

-What is the result of blocking the light-speed of a “one sided gluon” when the obstruction is coming from every side?

We have two assumptions available: 1) The Top quarks stops on its track, or 2) the Top quarks keeps the same speed.

The second assumption is impossible since massive particles cannot travel at light-speed.

And the first assumption is quite a bit hard to accept. But, on the other hand, massive objects like galaxies have been considered as “stationary” while space around them was expanding.

So there’s a big possibility that a Top quark is “stopped in its tracks”. Furthermore, we must take in consideration that the life span of a Top quark is so short that we probably will not measure its speed for quite a while yet. Anyway, this is the only possibility we are left with. So let's say that Top quarks are stopped in their tracks.

The solution gets more difficult to accept when we consider the fact that, in reality, galaxies are not “stationary”. Some of them travel toward each other. So it’s evident that galaxies do “travel” through expanding space. But then again, let's hold our horse and see if there's an explanation available.

The problem becomes: If Top quarks are stopped in their tracks, where does the traveling motion of galaxies in expanding space comes from?

There’s only one answer possible. Let’s describe it:

As we already saw, Top quark massive particles first appeared inside the surface of the gluon.

After this event, all other less massive particles appeared inside each other’s more massive preceding particle. So, it was all that “containing altered space” in and around the Top quark that was “blocked in its track” since the appearance of our Top quarks. And ever since that moment, all that “altered space” was not expanding while, inside itself, “splitting motions” of decaying particles was occurring. It’s evident that the particles resulting of each “decay”, gained motion and started “traveling inside the all “not expanding” volume of space we just described.

Funny, because if this is exact, we've just found the "seeds" of galaxies. They are called "Top quarks".

Afterward, the same process as when we, today, augment the speed of satellites by entering the “altered space” behind a planet (adding the speed of the planet to the speed of the satellite), augmented the speed of some of the new formed massive particles who were subjected to that situation (they crossed each other’s path).

This was the way each particles gained individual different speeds. This done, their speed conducted them in the related energetic level we call "orbits". Once again, what occurred in the microcosm occurred in the macrocosm. The same "law" applies to electron around a nucleus, to planets around a star and to stars around a galaxy. At least it’s the only explanation I can find to the actual “fact” that massive objects don’t travel at the same speed and those traveling at the same speed are regrouped together.

So from the “stationary" state of the Top Quark, subsequent particles gained speed because of gravity produced by the mass energy of each particles.

As for the electrons, since they were produced by collisions of Gamma rays going at the speed of light, it has a margin of speed that goes up to 99% of the speed of light. But in a hydrogen atom, for example, a calculation shows that the electron is traveling at about 2,200 kilometers per second; that's less than 1% of the speed of light. And since the hydrogen electron is captive of a volume of “altered space” around a proton, we get another indication that the speed of an electron is greatly slowed down by its collision of gamma rays going at light-speed. We can also deduce that each successive electronic level around a nucleus define a successive decreasing speed for electrons occupying them.

But, again, I could be completely wrong.

[Andrex]

Curved trajectories

Let us, together, be more specific and try to show how light-ray, or photons or whatever object can be deviated while going through an altered decreasing metric of a volume of space.

Here are blocks representing decreasing metrics with definite points of entry and exit:



Now if we regroup each different metrics one against the other, like what exists in a space decreasing metric situation, each exit points of a metric, becomes the entry point of the succeeding metric.

Now we will install those metrics inside a box that has a greater metric of its own, just like the “flat” universe has, but where metric doesn't decrease, keeping trajectory from deviating:



By considering only the trajectory designed by each exit points of the decreasing metric, we get a picture of the trajectory of an object traversing a 10^-35 m length metric (shortest length possible) which makes disappear the difference between exit and entry points of the object.

The result is a smooth curving of the object’s trajectory. This event doesn’t produce a difference whatsoever in the “shape” of space, was it “flat” or “altered”; it exclusively affect the object’s trajectory.

On the other hand the whole volume of altered space might result in a “blurred” effect, shown in some wavelength but not visible to the eye. Would this “blurred” effect be what was “seen” by scientists as a “halo” around galaxies? Which “halo” they misinterpreted as “dark matter” because they needed that “dark matter” to support their other misinterpretation of Einstein's gravitation still to much "peppered" by Newton's gravitation?

That is exactly what I think. Especially since the existence of dark matter is supported mostly by “gravitational lenses”, which we just saw didn’t need, at all, a “curvature of space” but only the “decreasing metric” of a volume of space, in order to “deviate” light.

I still could be mistaken, evidently; but I'm mostly certain that I'm not.

[Andrex]

A little added explanation about light:

By looking closely at the drawing I presented previously, I suddenly realized an additional answer to another “curiosity” about light-rays.



The direction of expansion is presented only one way on the drawing; but the reality is that expansion is manifested in every directions. And if you apply that “fact” to the drawing, you get a Gamma ray that is projected in 360 degrees; which is exactly the characteristic of light that is always projected all around its source.

Being aware of this, we can easily understand the enormous number of gamma ray collisions that occurred while decaying quarks; which can explain the enormous amount of electrons that exists in the universe.

Furthermore, if you look at the “bow wave” I "instinctively" drew in front and at the back of the quark particle, we now understand that this “bow wave” occurs all around the particle. Which adds to the definition to the “altered metric” of the space around the particle. Would that help to establish the length of the energetic levels around a particle? I don’t know…for now.

But it is obvious that this last event would occur exclusively around a galaxy; since inside it, there is no manifestation of expansion. This, consequently, would be an added "effect" to "altered metric of space" that would be exclusive to galaxies and leaves out the event around a today's particle. But the case wasn't the same at the epoch when Top quarks appeared even though it became the case after Top quarks decayed.

So I'll have to look at it seriously; because that would present a small difference in Top quarks characteristics that is not observed in other quarks characteristics. The only different characteristic of the Top quark that comes to my mind is that it doesn't form hadrons meaning they don't combine with other quarks.

To add something, we can say that the only known way the top quark can decay is producing a W-boson and a down-type quark that have negative charge of 1/3 (down, strange, or bottom). Which brings up another curiosity: The next to Top quark with a positive charge of 2/3 is the third most massive Charm quark (a bit more massive than a proton). And since this Charm quark is the first one with a charge of +2/3 able to form hadrons, I'll have to find the results of it's decay. I have it somewhere; I'll put it in my next post.

[Andrex]

Decay of Charm quark



Here we've just seen appearing a second generation of gluon (which nobody talks about anywhere); then:



Strange quark (-1/3) and antiStrange quark (+1/3) decays to form another pair/antipair of up (+2/3) + antiStrange (+1/3) and strange (-1/3) + antiUp (-2/3) quarks. Which shows that negatively charged particles decays in positively charged particles. Then:



And we still have another pair of strange (-1/3) quark/antiquark. They form a meson called “kaon” (Up (+2/3) + anti-strange (+1/3) and anti-Up (-2/3) + strange (-1/3)).

That Strange quark is really strange, is all I can say; as it seems to be a second generation of quark that never completely disappears. Could this have an impact on the results of the annihilation period, I wonder? One thing is clear: its decay end's up with Down and Up quarks and its antiparticle is still present.

On the other hand, the Kaon meson has been very prolific in information since the last 50 years. I'll look into it.

[Andrex]

My decaying Neutron problem.

Since I hold out that “forces” don’t exist, and the official transformation’s explanation of the Neutron into a Proton involves the weak “interaction”, I have to find a little bit of more precision in events regarding a part of the evolution of the universe. And that part is the chronology in regards to Proton and Neutrons.

This chronology is, in fact, very easy to define; because, since a proton “lives” longer than a Neutron, it has to be an improvement of “longevity”. Which simply means that the Neutron appeared before the Proton.

Neutrons are made of two Down quarks (-1/3 each) and one Up quark (+2/3). And we say that a Neutron transforms itself in a Proton by ejecting an electron (-1/3) (plus an electronic antineutrino). But, in reality, an electron has nothing to do with a quark and the result has to be the transformation of one of the Down quark (-1/3) of the neutron into an Up quark (+2/3). Which doesn’t seem possible with the ejected electron process.

So the problem is to find how a -1/3 charged particle can transforms into a +2/3 charged particle.

We know that ejecting an electron is the equivalent as inserting an anti-electron (positron). That is a universal “anti” process or at least, a mathematical “explanation” process. But this process doesn’t work in the electron ejected scenario, because, even if you “insert” a positron (+1/3) and add it to one of the Down quark, (-1/3) it doesn’t give you (+2/3) which would be an Up quark. So what is exactly that supposed d…. (-1/3) electron that is ejected from a Neutron?

Note that the neutron is about 0.2% more massive than a proton, which translates to an energy difference of 1.29 MeV. And since we’ve seen previously that an electron has a mass of 0.511 MeV, it’s certainly not an electron that is ejected.

As for neutrinos, it has practically no mass; but their spin is always opposite to the linear momentum; this is referred to as "left-handed", whereas the antineutrinos are always "right-handed". Note that the helicity is (+1) for an antineutrino (right-handed) and (-1) for a left-handed neutrino. But if neutrinos are their own anti particle, it means that they simply adopt the spin of the particle (lepton) they “travel with”.

An electron could have spin to the right and be traveling right and therefore be classified as a right-handed electron. But from the reference frame of a neutrino traveling faster than the electron, its spin would be to the left, while its velocity would be unchanged. This would mean that the electron would be a left-handed particle with respect to the neutrino’s reference frame.



It is also said that an Up quark is a Down quark to which is added a W+ boson. The positive W, afterward, decays into a positron and an electronic neutrino.

As for a Down quark (which is our subject here), it is an Up quark to which was added a W- boson. The negative W then, decays into an electron and an electronic antineutrino; which “explains” the ejection of an electron “observed”.

But even then, it becomes evident that there’s something happening before the “observed” ejection of an electron from a Neutron, transforming it into a Proton; and this “something” would be the addition of a Positron plus an electronic neutrino.

And since adding a Positron is the same as subtracting an electron we do find our ejected electron in the process ( did I ever talked about "merry-go-round" thinking?). But, still, neither of both “observed” facts: (-1/3) + (+1/3) nor (-1/3) – (-1/3) do result in (+2/3); so it doesn’t solve our problem at all.

In 1956 was discovered that the radioactive decay of a nucleus is more likely to produce a left-handed electron than a right-handed one. For religious people reading us, this discovery would mean that God is left-handed. The problem is that God, being everywhere, I can't understand how he can determine the helicity of an electron.

This is a right handed particle:



And this is a left handed particle:



So if we imply that the electric charge is related to the spin, we can see that if we “couple” two particles having opposite spins, they will “glue” to each other when they make contact:



But the total charge of the particles would then be “Zero”, instead of our needed +2/3 to create an Up quark. This isn’t our solution either.

So, what happens if we “couple” two particles having the same spin?



It’s easy to see that they will “repulse” each other when they make contact and, furthermore, their contact will make them reverse their rotation (spin) making both become +1/3 particles.

Now, the only thing left for us to do is use the verb “merge” instead of the verb “couple” that we did use. The “merging” result will then be a unique particle having an electric charge of +2/3; which is the Up quark we needed.

And since an Up quark is a Down quark to which is added a W+ boson to the -1/3 charge of the Down quark, our problem seems completely solved by observing the equivalent ejection of a W- boson observed as an ejected electron.

Now, since our W- boson is not, in our view, a weak force vector, it means only that it simply is a quanta of energy that is released from a neutron in order to transform it in a Proton. It also means that the “released” energy is, in fact, “mass energy” which explains why a neutron (939, 5654133 MeV) is about 0.2% more massive than a proton (938, 2720813 MeV) (a difference of 1, 293332 MeV).

So the ejected “mass energy” from a Neutron to become a Proton is then, 1, 293332 MeV; which isn’t at all the mass energy of a W particle.

Consequently it is not a W particle that is ejected in the process, but simply a quanta of energy totaling 1, 293332 MeV. And knowing that an electron has 0, 511 MeV of mass energy, what is ejected is not an electron either, since it is equal to 2, 35 times of an electron’s “mass energy”.

So, what the hell is ejected from a Neutron to produce a Proton? Are we back to square one?

Not really.

Remembering that an ejection is a “motion”, the energy ejected has to be “mass energy” transformed into “kinetic energy”; and this simple info provides us with a possible answer to our problem.

This possible answer is an existing particle that has 0, 053332 MeV less “kinetic former mass energy” than what is ejected from our Neutron; and this particle is a Gamma ray photon that has 1, 24 MeV with a 300 EHz frequency and a 1 Pico meter wavelength.

The difference of 0, 053332 MeV "kinetic former mass energy" can be then attributed to the neutrino (or anti neutrino) ejected which has kinetic but no mass energy.

For me, the problem is solved; for you, I don't know.

[Andrex]

My decaying brain problem

Here’s a proof that you cannot take for granted, whatever is said by anybody, including myself.

I don’t know what is happening to my brain; sometimes I get more and more “mixed up”.

In my last post I said that a Neutron expelled an electron and I gave it a charge value of -1/3. My neurons have probably “tilted”; because the charge value of an electron is -1.

So if ejecting a -1 particle (electron) is the same as injecting a +1 particle (positron), the injection of +1 to the value of a Down quark (-1/3) gives +2/3 result, and that, changes the Down quark to an Up quark.

Sorry about that “blunder”; but I’m surprised that nobody picked it up, though.

On the other hand, making that error, obliged me to describe a more precise physical event that explained what was happening exactly with its cause and its effects. Which I did and, maybe, wouldn’t have, if I hadn’t made that “mistake”.

It seems important since electrons cannot be involved in "merging" even at the level of quarks. So the “merging” of two “Down quarks” (with identical negative spin reversing by contact) does explain the “mutation” of a Down quark into an Up quark.

Now the question becomes: Where does that "single" Down quark come from? Because "single" quarks cannot exist...except "single" Top quark which always produce a "Down type" particle. So, even if it doesn't happens very frequently, we have an answer to our question: the "single" Down quark is produced by the decay of a Top quark. And since that "not frequent" fact is rarely taken in consideration, we might find here an explanation of the surplus of "matter" over "antimatter" while annihilation. It's worth looking into, I think.

Like in all the experiences made by the Universe, even errors do produce something positive to keep on improving; that’s what is called: "Evolution”.

[Andrex]

Neutrons

There’s still something to add about Neutron’s transformation in a Proton.

I’ve said earlier that a quanta of energy was expulse from a Neutron:

“This possible answer is an existing particle that has 0, 053332 MeV less “kinetic former mass energy” than what is ejected from our Neutron; and this particle is a Gamma ray photon that has 1, 24 MeV with a 300 EHz frequency and a 1 Pico meter wavelength.

The difference of 0, 053332 MeV "kinetic former mass energy" can be then attributed to the neutrino (or anti neutrino) ejected which has kinetic but no mass energy.”

This would mean that the “merging” of two Down quarks provokes a Gamma “vibration” (ray burst) around a Neutron when transforming in a Proton.

Could this be a “prediction” observed by actual scientists?

What we know, is that when a “free” Neutron decays…

“A small fraction (about one in 1000) of free neutrons decay add an extra particle in the form of an emitted gamma ray. This gamma ray may be thought of as a sort of "internal bremsstrahlung".

The reason why only a “small fraction of Neuron decays” applies to our description is that there are not many “free Neutrons” remaining, today, in our universe; and we were describing the “natural” first transformation of Neutrons into Protons in the history of our Universe, before nucleus and atoms where formed. Meaning, if you remember well, when Neutrons first appeared in our Universe before transforming into Protons.

But this is not the only event that appeared; a rarer event also happened.

“A very small minority of neutron decays (about four per million) are so-called "two-body (neutron) decays", in which a proton, electron and anti-neutrino are produced as usual, but the electron fails to gain the 13.6 eV necessary energy to escape the proton (the ionization energy of hydrogen), and therefore simply remains bound to it, as a neutral hydrogen atom”.

So we just found out in what circumstance Hydrogen atom appeared in our Universe. Now if ever those events happened before annihilation, the Hydrogen atom being neutral would explain the "survival" of matter over anti-matter. I'll have to look into this possibility.

Gee, physics is fun!

[Andrex]

Precision on “Where the Down quark comes from”

Taken from:
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... on-anyway/

"You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarks and one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all."



So if a Proton is structure like this, the neutron has the same structure. Which tells us where the Down quark (-1/3) added to one of the extra two Down quarks in order to change it into an Up quark is already inside the Neutron. What happens is that two Down quarks fusion to produce an Up quark.

What is the consequence of that “fusion”?

Fusion: When two particles fuse, they produce a new particle and expel the surplus of energy unused. So, in the fusion of two Down quarks to produce an Up quark, what is the nature of that surplus of energy that is not used?

1) It’s not the electric charge since they add each other completely (in an opposite charge).

2) It’s not the spin, since they both have the same 1/2 spin and ends with another ½ spin.

So that leaves us with the “mass energy”.

Mass energy of a Down quark is 4, 8 MeV; so two Down quarks = 9, 6 MeV.

Mass energy of an Up quark is 2, 4 MeV. Which gives us a surplus of 7, 2 MeV that has to be expelled. Let’s note that this amount of “mass energy” is exactly the equivalent of a Down Quark’s plus an Up quark’s.

So it’s this “mass energy” that has to be ejected as “kinetic energy”.

In beta decay, the Q value for the reaction is the amount of the kinetic energies of the emitted beta particle, and neutrino.

Beta particles can therefore be emitted with any kinetic energy ranging from 0 to Q. A typical Q is around 1 MeV, but can range from a few keV to a few tens of MeV. Since the rest mass of the electron is 0, 511 MeV (511 KeV), the most energetic beta particles are ultrarelativistic, with speeds very close to the speed of light.

Let’s accept that an electron with a mass energy of 0, 511 MeV is ejected (since it is observed). This leaves us with 6, 689 MeV of kinetic energy that represents the speed of the electron and of the neutrino in a normal Beta decay.

As we just saw in our process, neither the beta particle nor its associated neutrino exist within the nucleus prior to beta decay, but are created in the decay process. That is exactly what is observed officially.

On the other hand, it is also said that a W- boson is “emitted” which instantly (not observed) transforms itself in an electron and neutrino. But the mass energy of a W- boson being 80, 39 GeV, is a lot to massive to be “created” in the beta decay process. So I doubt it.

[Andrex]

During this discussion, we've found a lot of new explanations in regard to events that happened during the history of our universe. That's why I'm much temped to revise the whole story once again.

Universe’s chronology

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."—Steven Weinberg

I can understand Mr. Steven Weinberg’s opinion of our comprehension of the universe being almost a “farce”; which is, in fact, the actual tragedy. But we’ll try to describe it as something wonderfully elegant and practically natural by adding the corrections we elaborated in this discussion to the official version.

First let’s say that the Big Bang is not a "theory" at all, but rather a scenario about the early moments of our universe, for which the evidence is overwhelming. The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed; but, it tells us nothing about where they came from or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.

Which is perfectly acceptable since the Big bang represents the first appearance of our three-dimensional (volume) universe at 10^-43 sec. Meaning that time, distance (space) and energy came from BEFORE that moment; which would be during the Planck epoch from time = zero to 10^-43 sec. As for the temperature, it’s simply related to the density of energy of the universe at the time.

Our universe, being in expansion, means that it was much denser in the past. The density we are talking about is the density of energy which would have been compressed into a much smaller space than it is today, since any chunk of the universe we can observe, no matter how large, as expanded from an infinitesimally small volume of space and energy is an invariant.

Space started expanding 13, 82 billion years ago (Big bang) from a volume of 10^-35 meter (Planck’s length). We will not talk about the non-observable part of the universe since we base our knowledge on observations.

The Big Bang was an expansion of space itself. Every part of space participated in it. Which is easy to conceive, since it started with a single point (volume) of 10^-35 meter in diameter; so it’s the whole “point” that expanded in every direction, starting from everywhere inside that point. Exactly like expansion is manifesting itself today in “flat” space; expansion has no “source”; it manifests everywhere.

The universe is a spherical volume of space.

The chronology of the universe describes the history and future of the universe according to Big Bang cosmology. The metric expansion of space is estimated to have begun 13, 82 billion years ago. For the purposes of this summary, it is convenient to divide the chronology of the universe into six parts:

1) The Planck epoch that lasted 10^-43 second.

2) The very early universe, from the end of Planck epoch until the cosmic inflation, 10^-43 sec to 10^-36 sec.

3) The inflation period from start of inflation to its end, 10^-36 sec to 10^-32 sec

4) The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, 10^-32 sec to 380,000 years of cosmic time.

5) The period of large-scale structure formation, including stellar evolution, galaxy formation and evolution and the formation of galaxy clusters and superclusters, from about 150 million years to present.

6) The far future, after cessation of stellar formation, with various scenarios for the ultimate fate of the universe. This part we can discuss if you want to, but is not very interesting to my point of view.

So let’s start!

1) The Planck epoch:
Time = 0 until 10^-43 sec

Official: “The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) big bang cosmology wherein the temperature was so high that the four fundamental forces—electromagnetism, gravitation, weak nuclear interaction, and strong nuclear interaction—were one fundamental force”.

And since an evolution concept demands that the temperature starts at zero and, also, since the first force of all four fundamental forces, gravity which was the first appearing in our universe, is proven not being a “force” at all; we’ll consider the whole official description of Planck's epoch as bull s…

So, what could have happened during Planck's epoch?

The Big bang is an evolution’s scenario. And that kind of scenario demands that it starts with “nothing”, eventually evolving in “something”. In probability calculation, this “nothing” is called a “potentiality”. Zero probability means “impossibility”; which is equivalent to "no potentiality" at all. So an evolution as to start with one “potentiality” that evolves in more defined probabilities. And when every probabilities considered are all definite “possibilities”, the process sums up to: One, which means that we are in front of a “reality”. The whole picture is then of a “potentiality” that made itself a “reality” through normal evolution stages.

To make Planck's epoch short (but never as short as it was), we know that our universe is Euclidean. Euclid describes space as being composed of elementary “points” (indivisible and invisible); which means “uni-dimensional points”. So the “potentiality” of the space of our universe has to be a “uni-dimensional elementary point”; which becomes our “nothing” starting point of evolution.

To eventually become “visible” the uni-dimensional point has to manifest itself; in other words, it has to “move”. But having no “space” available (space doesn’t exist yet), the only motion possible is to rotate on itself; which makes appear a bi-dimensional (surface) point because of the centrifugal effect. This rotation producing a centrifugal effect is followed, after the first rotation, by the manifestation of a centripetal effect.

Consequently, after each turn, the size of the “elementary point”, its energy, the centrifugal and centripetal effects including the difference in the intensity of each effects, all increase exponentially. And it does so until the difference between both effects is so great that the centripetal effect cannot balance the centrifugal effect anymore. That’s when the expanded elementary point ripped in two parts. The energy controlling the centrifugal effect part was projected in all directions giving depth to the previous surface. That instant was the Big bang; when a three-dimensional “volume” of space appeared in our universe.

That new volume of space, created by the half portion of the previous surface evolving during Planck’s epoch, kept on expanding in all directions while the other centripetal half portion recoiled on itself back in Planck’s epoch and started to rotate in the counter direction it was rotating previously.

Naturally there was a interval between the appearance of the volume of space and the ripping of the Planck’s surface, since only half of the surface was projected in our universe when that surface became visible by attaining a diameter of 10^-35 meter. But the projected portion was going at light-speed making that interval very short.

We will continue the story of the universe in the next post; if you don't mind.

To see the process of exponential increase of our uni-dimensional point look at page one:

by Andrex on July 3rd, 2015, 4:53 pm

[Andrex]

...


I’m having a bit of a problem making the “part 2” of universe’s chronology as elegant as I want, because of the “officially accepted” one which is almost a “farce”, like Weinberg implied. I’ll succeed in doing it but, meanwhile, let’s take a break and consider something else; like the fact that:

Expansion of the universe has no “source”.

Many people have problem in figuring how expansion of the universe can be everywhere at the same time, without having any “starting point”? Which means that the universe has no center.

Let’s state the “facts” we know, and describe the event.

Facts:

1) Space is composed of small volumes (points) that have a metric of 10^-35 meter.

2) Space expands, but in the process, the “basic” metric doesn’t. The metric simply duplicates.

Event:

Let’s look at a volume of “expanded space” and see what shows a drawing of this event:



The event is that every time a volume of the basic metric duplicates, this duplication starts duplicating also. So if we consider the whole volume of space that results from all this duplication, there’s no way we can “pin-point” a source to it because it’s made everywhere continuously.

And if you stop the “expansion” (take a photo for example) to consider “static” space, it’s like looking at a carpet in the middle of a room. You cannot “see” where the carpet was started when it was fabricated… unless you know how it’s made.

And since, now, you know how the universe was made, there’s no more problem in understanding that expansion has no definite “source”.

Some will say that if this really is the process involved, then expansion eventually has to be faster than light-speed. The answer is that expansion is not really a “motion” from one point to another; it’s a “process” that describes an overall motion. And this process cannot proceed faster than light-speed; so it cannot describe a more than light-speed motion since there’s no “source” to it (no starting point). In fact, the process does proceed at light-speed everywhere in the universe; so the only observed motion that equals it, is the motion of light, because photons are massless.

This is also the reason why we cannot measure the speed of expansion, since any referential available has “mass”. Which means that we cannot know if expansion is accelerating or not. All we can know is if "massive objects" are accelerating in space, according to the referential we chose.

[Andrex]

Universe Chrono (scene 2)

This is as elegant I can make this story with the information actually available. As you will see, I had to add more parts for the chronology.

2) The very early universe,
10^-43 sec to 10^-36 sec.

Starting from the Planck epoch until the cosmic inflation, or as some say, the first picosecond (10^−12 sec) of cosmic time (a picosecond is to one second as one second is to 31,710 years); this period is the domain of active theoretical research, currently beyond the grasp of most experiments in particle physics but, evidently, not beyond the grasp of human mind. 1 picosecond is the time taken by light in a vacuum, to travel approximately 0.30 mm and it represents also the half-life of a bottom quark; even though bottom quarks didn’t exist at the time.

At 10^-43 sec, it is exclusively “space”, which just appeared, that starts to expand at light-speed, meeting no resistance whatsoever since nothing else than that “expanding motion” exists at this time. The advent of space itself is due to the “bit less than light speed” of the “surface” particle projected from Planck’s epoch, called the neutrino. It’s a radiating epoch exclusively.

3) Cosmic inflation
10^-36 sec to 10^-32 sec

This event is cause by the rapid introduction of the gluon particle, ejected from Planck’s “universe”, at 10^-36 sec. The gluon boson is a funny particle; it’s a “surface” particle with a “toward the center” topology and bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space. During this event, it has both its “mirror” surfaces “disjoined” by expansion. This produces Top and antiTop quarks with the two subsequent generations of quarks. All these sub-events expands existing space by a factor of the order of 10^26 over a lap time of 10^−36 to 10^−32 second. This event prepares the period of the quarks-gluons plasma.

3a) Chronological appearance of “real” particles: 1) Gluon -> 2) Top quark -> 3) Gamma photon -> 4) Z boson -> 5) W boson -> 6) Bottom quark -> 7) Tau (electron) -> 8) Charm quark -> 9) Muon (electron) -> 10) Strange Quark -> 11) Down quark -> 12) Up quark -> 13) electron. Neutrinos simply adapt themselves to the electronic particle they travel with. The sum of the volume of all those particles participate in inflating the “altered space” (inside the space delimited by the gluon) of the universe, while the rest of space keeps on expanding.


3b) this inflation period produces all three generations of quarks and leptons. Surprisingly, researchers investigate the “inflaton decay” during this period, when nobody knows what an inflaton is. “-Say; what are you doing? –I’m catching “mook-mook” flies. –What’s a “mook-mook flie? –I don’t know; I never caught any yet.”

3b1) Top quarks production causes gamma rays around them, then they decay in two more generations of quarks which adapt to the gradually decreasing energy density of their environment. This is when our universe becomes electromagnetic.

3b2) Colliding gamma rays produces the three generations of leptons which also adapt to their environment’s density.

4) At the end of inflation. Reheating period
10^-32 and lasted until 10^-6 sec.

At 10^-32 sec, starts what is called the reheating period when the third generation of inflation particles swims into a hot, thermal quarks-gluons plasma. The quarks-gluons plasma composes all of “altered space” of the universe; the rest is still “flat” electromagnetic space expanding. Note: There’s something about this event that we’ll have to look into later.

Quarks are now gradually bound into hadrons, including neutrons and protons. Of the hadrons, protons are stable. All free hadrons except the proton (and antiproton) are unstable, but in the laps of time involved here, we can consider that the neutron, with his life-span of 15 minutes, as being stable since the universe is not even 1 second old yet. This period was followed by the Hadron period.

5) The hadron period
10^-6 sec and lasted until 1 second.

During this period, all free particles and anti-particles annihilated. I mention only free elementary particles because we know that antimatter, in the form of anti-atoms, is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. So if we suppose that once quarks and antiquarks are protected inside a Neutron (which is neutral), and Neutrons started being produced at the beginning of 10^-6 sec, we can suggest that only the “free particles” could annihilate while colliding.

On the other hand, as we already saw, in 1956 was discovered that the radioactive decay of a nucleus (where stands a Neutron, Proton do not decay) is more likely to produce a left-handed electron than a right-handed one; so there’s a good possibility that the original particle “source” of radioactive decay (beta decay of the neutron) is more likely to have the same asymmetry in being produce with opposite helicity (right-handed neutrons) than its opposite particle (left-handed neutron).

If so, at the end of the hadron period, free particles had disappear leaving the surviving surplus of protected right-handed neutrons by themselves. With this scenario, there’s no need of a surplus of matter over anti-matter; but it will take another 15 minutes before a proton appears. So what? I’m trying to save humanity here; because if there’s no surplus of matter over anti-matter and they all annihilate, we will never exist.

In the following experience:

http://neutrino.physics.wisc.edu/teachi ... 285652.pdf

We read (last page):

“There seems to be a mysterious preference for a positive sign to the asymmetry. That is, neutrons with spins polarized along the direction of motion (right-handed) tend to be scattered more readily than neutrons with opposite polarization. In fact, in the case of 232Th, all seven observed asymmetries showed this preference.”

So there’s definitely an asymmetry observed in regard to neutrons and proton particles. This asymmetry might explain matter over anti-matter…maybe.

In fact, the idea of “negative matter” appeared in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of anti-electrons (positrons). And since an electron is an “elementary particle”, its equivalent would be the quark (and anti-quark) and not the baryon (and anti-baryon). Since at the time, scientists thought that baryons where elementary particles, they made the wrong equivalence. But that doesn’t change the fact that hadrons annihilated with anti-hadrons with the possible exception of the right-handed neutrons and, maybe, the same kind of protons.

We can add the information that the neutron-proton ratio was set by Standard Model physics before the nucleosynthesis era, essentially within the first 1-second after the Big Bang. At times much earlier than 1 sec, these reactions were fast and maintained the n/p ratio close to 1:1. As the temperature dropped, the equilibrium shifted in favour of protons due to their slightly lower mass, and the n/p ratio smoothly decreased.

During the 1970s, there was a major puzzle in that the density of baryons as calculated by Big Bang nucleosynthesis was much less than the observed mass of the universe based on measurements of galaxy rotation curves and galaxy cluster dynamics. This puzzle was resolved in large part by postulating the existence of dark matter. But the solution doesn’t really stands and the problem is in the actual interpretation of Einstein gravity.

6) The lepton epoch
1 sec to 10 sec.

During the lepton epoch the temperature of the universe was still high enough to create lepton/anti-lepton pairs, so leptons and anti-leptons were in thermal equilibrium. Personally I don’t think that it was temperature that “created” lepton pairs. I think it was the decreasing density of the environment that provoked it. Decreasing temperature was only a consequence of the decreasing density of energy provoked by expansion within “flat” space. So “altered space” had to adapt particles that appeared inside itself to this overall decreasing density. Approximately 10 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe had fallen to the point where lepton/anti-lepton pairs were no longer created. Most leptons and anti-leptons were then eliminated in annihilation reactions, leaving a small residue of leptons. So now, officially, we find that there was two annihilation periods (I have serious doubts).

The mass of the universe was then dominated by photons as it entered the following photon epoch. But photons don’t have mass; so tell me; what is that “mass of the universe” that comes from nowhere at this moment? Was there any previous mention that the universe had mass? Up until now, only particles have “mass energy”. Why insert “mass-universe” in this description at this point? Is it to freely give mass to the universe? That would be a great “farce”; since the universe is all that exists and we know that massless particles exist. So why the universe itself, that we find “flat”, should be considered as having mass, if part of it is massless? I’m a “two brown eyes man standing”; which doesn’t mean that I’m a “two brown eyes standing”.

7) The photon epoch
10 seconds after Big bang.

It started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang. Atomic nuclei were created in the process of nucleosynthesis which occurred during the first few minutes of the photon epoch (new stable atomic nuclei results by adding a Proton and a Neutron to the previous stable nucleus; but that is not the process of their production. In reality, existing elements “fuse” than expel whatever energy that is in surplus to produce new elements).

For the remainder of the photon epoch the universe contained a hot dense plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons that lasted until 380,000 tears after the Big bang. The temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was manifested.

7a) Primordial nucleosynthesis has taken place in the interval from roughly 10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang; which gives enough time to our “surviving” right-handed neutrons to transform into protons by ejecting an electron, thus creating hydrogen atoms of 1 proton + 1 electron (if so, this changes the epoch of Primordial nucleosynthesis which would have started at 15 minutes instead of 10 seconds or it was an added event). The fusion of nuclei occurred between [u]roughly[/u] 10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang; and is calculated to be responsible for the formation of most of the universe's helium as the isotope normal form of helium-4 (2 protons + 2 neutrons + 2 electrons), along with small amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium (1 proton + 1 neutron + 1 electron), the helium isotope helium-3 (2 protons + 1 neutron + 2 electrons), and a very small amount of the lithium isotope lithium-7 (7Li). Essentially all of the elements that are heavier than lithium were created much later, by stellar nucleosynthesis in evolving and exploding stars.

Note: An isotope is an element that has 1 additional neutron, than the number of positive protons “needed” to equilibrate with the number of negative electrons; which makes an isotope unstable. Except for the helium 3, which is the only stable element that has more protons than neutrons; normally a stable element has the same amount of protons than neutrons.

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP/Planck, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3 below the theoretically predicted value and is considered a problem for the original models.

Sorry to leave you with a problem, but you cannot ask me to solve all of them.  On the other hand, establishing the surplus of matter over antimatter on a “surviving” neutron, might solve that “below value” observed.

[Andrex]

Addendum:

Remember when I said previously: “The quarks-gluons plasma composes all of “altered space” of the universe; the rest is still “flat” electromagnetic space expanding. Note: There’s something about this event that we’ll have to look into later.” Well, now is the time:

Frequency

Frequency describes the number of waves that pass a fixed place in a given amount of time. So if the time it takes for a wave to pass is 1/2 second, the frequency is 2 per second. If it takes 1/100 of an hour, the frequency is 100 per hour.



Usually frequency is measured in the hertz unit, named in honor of the 19th-century German physicist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz. The hertz measurement, abbreviated Hz, is the number of waves that pass by per second. For example, an "A" note on a violin string vibrates at about 440 Hz (440 vibrations per second).

Now if we come back at the “creation” of electromagnetic waves



We can see that the motion coming from the bottom added to the motion coming from the top are both represented in a wave producing the up and down motion of the wave. The frequency becomes, then, the amount of up and downs made in a definite period of time (Hertz are in one second).

The longer the waves gets, the less frequency it has. This event is called the expansion of the wavelength. In reality, the expansion doesn’t change the energy of the wave; it only changes the angle of the trajectory of each up and down motions. As the following:



As you can see, whatever the wave length expands, the energy never diminishes and the wave never “flattens”. That’s because all of our universe is electromagnetic. The electromagnetic universe expands (expanding wavelength) but the “electromagnetic wave” doesn’t interact with gravity, otherwise than being deviated by space decreasing metric's. But even then, the energy doesn’t decrease so its wave doesn’t flatten”. On the other hand increasing or decreasing the density of energy (decreasing or increasing space metric) affects frequencies (per definite time length). From this point of view the universe is energy.

So, we find that the wavelength as nothing to do with the energy of a wave. It’s solely related to the metric of space it traverses. Consequently, the frequency of ups and downs during a time lap (hertz) is also related to the metric of space that the wave traverses; and not at all related to its energy. The energy of those waves is the energy that “flat” universe has. The difference between "flat" space and "altered" space, in regard to electromagnetic, is the frequency of wavelength which as to adapt to the metric of space.

But what kind of energy are we talking about?

We know that electromagnetic waves represents the energy deployed by a photon in traveling. It cannot be “mass energy” because photons don’t have “mass”. So it can only be kinetic energy, since this energy propels photons to light-speed.

So what of the Doppler effect on light?

The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect), when taking into account effects described by the special theory of relativity.



In the diagram, the blue point represents the observer, and the arrow represents the observer's velocity vector relative to its surroundings. When the observer is stationary, the x,y-grid appears yellow everywhere and the y-axis appears as a black vertical line. Increasing the observer's velocity to the right shifts the colors and the aberration of light distorts the grid. When the observer looks forward (right on the grid), points appear green, blue, and violet (blueshift) and grid lines appear farther apart. If the observer looks backward (left on the grid), then points appear red (redshift) and lines appear closer together. The grid has not changed, but its appearance for the observer has.

As for the “redshift”, it’s easy to understand that if we get a blueshift perception the object is getting closer and if we get a redshift the object is getting farther.

[Andrex]

Problem:

I see a problem with the previous description of relativistic Doppler effect. To my mind, it's impossible that the grid looks larger "in front" of the traveling direction. I'll have to think about it.

Meanwhile, if anybody as a clearer explanation for the effect, don't be shy.