These are copies of face book postings made by Jeffrey O'Callaghan

https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm

Please visit The Road to unifying Relativistic and Quantum Theories | Facebook << https://www.facebook.com/groups/UnifyQMwithGR >>to discuss these and other ideas on why our universe is what it is.

1. Do the laws of physics break down in a black hole

The existence of a singularity at the center of a black hole is often taken as proof that the Theory of General Relativity has broken down, which is perhaps not unexpected as it occurs in conditions where quantum effects should become important. However, as is shown below The General Theory of Relativity tells us the strength of the gravitational field at the event horizon of a black hole causes time to stop for all observers.. The question is how can matter move beyond the event horizon if time has stopped with respect to all reference frames. Since motion is define as the change in an objects position over time the General Theory of Relatively does not break down because it tells us the movement of all objects and matter must also stop at that point. Therefore it can not continue to collapse to the point called a singularity.

In other words, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a black hole its laws do not break down because it tells us time freezes at its "surface" or event horizon with respect to all observers. This means it must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to the one defined by the radius of it event horizon. Therefore, a singularity cannot form at its center because matter cannot continue to or collapse beyond that point.

The question we need to answer is should we assume that quantum mechanics breaks down because it predicts the existence of a singularity in the center of a black hole

Einstein told us that time is dilated by a gravitational field. Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface. The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein's theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.

However, it also tells us, the laws of physics developed by Einstein for a space-time environment are not violated in black hole with respect to all external observers because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field would not allow the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and Therefore, continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side. Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

(However, some have suggested that a singularity would form in a black hole if the collapse of a star was not symmetrical with respect to its center. In other words, if one portion of its surface moved at a higher velocity that another towards its center it could not be consider an inertial reference frame because it would be pushed or pulled due to the differential gravity force cause be its uneven collapse. But the laws governing time dilation in Einstein's theory tell us that time would move slower for those sections of the surface that are moving faster allowing the slower ones to catch up. This tells us that every point on the surface of star will be at the event horizon at the exact same time and therefore its center will not experience any pushing or pulling at the time of its formation and therefore could be considered an inertial reference frame.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star's surface relative to its center. The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for all observers who is at the center of the clasping mass and the contraction cannot continue from their perspectives.

However, it also tells us, the laws of physics developed by Einstein for a space-time environment are not violated in black hole with respect to an observer who is at the its center because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field would not allow the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

Yet, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reaches the critical circumference. Therefore, an observer on the surface of that star will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein's theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing. Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference. The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stopped with respect to all reference frames that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a star's surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein's theories indicate time in its external environment would become infinitely dilated or stop when the surface of a collapsing star reaches its critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference with respect to the external environment of an observer who riding on its surface the contraction cannot continue because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

However, it also tells us, the laws of physics are not violated in black hole with respect to all riding on the surface of a star because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein's concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces the collapse of matter must stop at the critical circumference.

*****

3. Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.” That’s quantum mechanics in a nutshell.

One of the difficulties in merging quantum mechanics with Einstein's Relativistic Theories is its predictive powers are based on the assumption the physical evolution of space and time determines the future while quantum mechanics defines it only in terms the evolution of the mathematical properties of the wave function.

To begin we should start with one of the most basic aspects of the wave function that defines Quantum reality

The physicist John Wheeler asked how can one best define that reality in five words or fewer? he determined the best answer was given by Aatish Bhatia “Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.” That’s quantum mechanics in a nutshell."

This suggests that we must explain why Don’t look: waves. Look: particles defines the reality of a quantum environment in terms of the physical evolution of space and time.

On way of doing this is to use the fact that both their evolutions are controlled by a wave. For example, Relativity defines it in terms of the energy propagated by electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function.

(Einstein provided a mechanism for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he defined gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it. This means one can define the propagation of energy associated it in terms of the alternating curvatures of the peak and valleys of one as it moves it.)

This suggests the wave function that governs the evolution of a quantum environment may be mathematical represented by the electromagnetic wave that governs evolution in the world of Relativity. This means we may be able understand why Don’t look: waves. Look: particles describes quantum reality by looking at how an electromagnetic wave evolves in the space-time environment of Relativity

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relatively tells us wave energy would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from by moving through time by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

In other words, this shows one can use the established science of wave mechanics and physical world of Relativity to show why when some looks at quantum existence it appears as a particle because that act creates boundaries required to create the resonant system which defines it.

This also shows how one can merge the explanation of quantum mechanics given above of Don’t look: waves. Look: particles" in terms of the evolving space-time environment of Relativity.

For example, it explains why the act of looking at a quantum environment creates the confinement required for the creation of a standing energy wave in three-dimensional space which, as shown above is responsible for the quantize properties of particles in a quantum world.

Yet, if no one is looking the wave properties of that environment will be predominant because it is free to move until they are observed and then they will revert to the back their particle properties.

This shows how one can understand the validity of describing quantum mechanics as "Don’t look: waves. Look: particles" in terms of a deterministic evolutionary processes in a space-time environment.

*****

5. Quantum entanglement

Presently, there is disconnect between our understanding of one of the most mysterious facets of quantum mechanics quantum, that of quantum entanglement and the classical one of separation.

Entanglement occurs when two particles are linked together no matter their separation from one another. Quantum mechanics assumes even though these entangled particles are not physically connected, they still are able to interact or share information with each other instantaneously.

Many believe this means the universe does not live by the law's classical laws of separation or those derived by Einstein which stated that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.

However, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions because Einstein gave us the definitive answer as to how and why particles are entangled in terms of the physical properties of space-time.

Quantum mechanics assumes that entanglement occurs when two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum. This connection persists even if you move one of the entangled objects far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.

There is irrefutable experimental evidence the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of particles can instantaneously effect another even though they are physically separated from each other.

However, before we come to the conclusion it is a result of their quantum mechanical properties, we should first examine the experimental setup and any variables that may allow us to come to a different conclusion.

In quantum physics, it is assumed entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one immediately affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The rules of Quantum physics also state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.

One of the experiments that many assume verifies that entanglement is a quantum phenomenon uses (This description was obtained from the Live Science web site) a laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal which causes individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons. The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more. When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state (or information) between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance. Scientists have successfully demonstrated quantum entanglement with photos, electrons, molecules of various sizes, and even very small diamonds.

However, Einstein told us there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure distance.

Therefore he tells the distance between the observational points in a laboratory, can also be defined from the perspective of the photons in the above experiment.

Yet, this tell us (Please see attached graphic) that the separation between the observation points in a laboratory from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light would be ZERO no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in that laboratory. This is because, as was just mentioned according to the concepts of Relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.

Therefore, according to Einstein's theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled no matter how far they may appear to be from the perspective of an observer who is looking at them.

In other words, entanglement of photons can be explained and predicted terms of the relativistic properties of space-time as defined by Einstein as well as by quantum mechanics.

One way of determining if this is correct would be to determine if particles which were NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement over the same distances as photon which are.

This is because, the degree of relativistic shortening of the distance between the end points of the observations of two particle is dependent on their velocity with respect to the laboratory were they are being observed.

Therefore, all photons no matter how far apart they are from the perspective of a lab will be entangled because Einstein tells due to the fact that they are moving at the speed of light that distance will be Zero from their perspective.

However, he also tells us that for particles moving slower than the speed of light the distance between will be greater than zero and how much more would depend on their the relative speed with respect to it. In other words, the slower with respect to the lab they are moving the less that distance will be shortened.

Therefore, if it was found that only photons experience entanglement when the observation points were separated by large distances it would support the idea that it is caused by the relativistic properties of space defined by Einstein.

However, one must remember the wave particle duality of existence as defined by Quantum mechanics tell us that before a particle is observed it has an extended length equal due to its wavelength. Therefore, all particles will be entangled if the reduction in length between the endpoints of the observations when adjusted with respect to their relative velocity is less their wave length as defined by quantum mechanics.

A more conclusive argument could be made for the idea that entanglement is a result of the relativistic properties of space if it was found that entanglement ceased when the relativistic distance between the end points of observation when viewed from the perspective of particle moving slower than the speed of light was greater than its wavelength as defined by quantum mechanics.

Some have suggested that "There are inertial frames for every speed less than light - speaking informally - but there is no inertial frame for light speed itself. Any attempt to generate one actually generates a degenerate frame which can cover only an infinitesimal fraction of space-time." However the argument that there are "There are inertial frames for every speed less than light" because they would create an infinitesimal fraction of space-time is invalid, because Special Relativity WITHOUT EXCEPTION defines an inertial frame reference as one which is not undergoing acceleration. Therefore, even though using a photon as a reference frame may create infinitesimal 2 dimensional fraction of space-time the conceptual foundations formulas for length contractions of reference frames in relative motion define by Einstein tells us that one can exist. One reason that all of the mass which is contained in it is not undergoing acceleration. Therefore, the fact that it may define a degenerate frame would be irrelevant to the conclusion draw above because as that post showed it is the distance between the end points of the observation when viewed from a photon that determines whether or not it will be entangled.

*****

6. Understanding the dynamics of the uncertainty principle in terms of space-time

Quantum mechanics states what the universe is made of while not giving an explanation of why it is that way while Relativity gives us an explanation of why it is what it is but does not tell us what is it made of. For example, the quantum world is defined by the mathematical properties of the wave function which define the evolution of wave-particle duality of existence while defining their interactions in terms the uncertainty principal which states one cannot precisely measure the properties of Conjugate pairs such as the momentum or position of a particle with complete accuracy. However, it does not give an explanation of what existence is or how it interacts with its environment to create the universe we live in.

On the other hand, Relativity explains the existence of the universe and the particles it contains in terms of an interaction between space and time without telling us what wave-particle duality of existence is or how it interacts with it to create the uncertainty principal.

Therefore, to understand the dynamics of the uncertainty principle in terms of space-time we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of space-time is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. This means to derive the uncertainty principle in terms of space-time one must physically connect it to an electromagnetic wave.

(Einstein defined the medium responsible for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he derived gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it. This is because it shows the alternating physical curvatures caused by peak and valleys of a wave through its geometry can support its movement.)

One can connect them because the science of wave mechanics and Relatively tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined or COLLAPSING to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

As was mentioned earlier the mathematical properties of the wave functions defines the evolution of a quantum system in terms of its wave particle duality. However, as was shown above one can understand why if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because similar to the wave function if it is prevented from evolving through space by an observation it presents itself as a particle.

Yet, it also tells us why, similar to the evolution of an electromagnetic wave if unobserved it will continue evolve through the mathematical universe defined by quantum mechanics.

In other words, it shows how one can understand the evolution of wave-particle duality of a quantum existence by comparing it to the evolution of an electromagnetic wave in space-time

Next, we must explain how quantum mechanics definition of a particle in terms of a one-dimensional point is responsible for the validity of the uncertainty principal.

Relativity and the science of wave mechanics tell us the energy of the standing wave which earlier defined a particle would be distributed over a volume of space-time that corresponds to is wavelength. However, to accurately determine its momentum or position one must be able to determine where those measurement are taken with respect to energy volume of the system it occupies.

Yet, to measure momentum of a particle in the quantum world one must determine time it takes to move between two points in the mathematical field with respect to the volume of system being measured. Therefore, they will be an inherent uncertainty if one cannot determine where with respect to it those points are.

The fact that both of these theories assume that energy or information of a system can nether be created or destroy provides the basis for the connecting the uncertainty principal to the space-time environment of relativity.

THIS IS BECAUSE THE FACT THE MEASUREMENT OF MONUMENT OR POSITION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF INFORMATION OR ENERGY IN A SYSTEM TELL US THE MEASUREMENT OF ONE WILL AFFECT THE OTHER.

Quantum mechanics defines both moment and position with respect to a one-dimensional point in the mathematical field of the wave function. However, the accuracy of the information as to where that point is in relation to its information volume is directly related to how much of it is taken from the system. This means the more accurate the measurement the more information regarding it must be removed from the system and the less is available to measure the other component of its Conjugate pair

For example, as was mentioned earlier because the information volume of a system remains constant the more of it is taken out regarding its momentum will result in there will being less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less information left in its volume to define its position. While the more information taken out of it regarding its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less information left in that volume to define it. This would be true for all Conjugate pairs.

However, the same would be true in a relativistic system because its energy is must be conserved when its position or momentum is measured. Therefore because, the accuracy of a measurement is directly related to the amount to energy taken out of a system; the measurement of each component of a Conjugate pairs will effect the other. For example the added energy required to make a more accurate measurement of a systems momentum will result in there being less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less energy in that system to define it. While the more additional energy required to make a more accurate measurement of its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less energy left in the system to define it.

This shows how one can understand and physically connect the uncertainty principal as defined by quantum mechanics to the space time environment define by Einstein.

*****

7. How should we define reality?

This question is especially relevant for the scientists who struggle on daily basis to help us understand the "inner" reality of our universe.

Some define it based on a quantitative mathematical analysis of observations.

For example, Quantum mechanics defines the "reality" or the state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made. However, defining reality in terms of probabilities means that each probabilistic outcome of an event becomes a reality in the future. This is why some proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.

This also may be why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

However, others define reality in terms of deterministic proprieties of cause and effect.

For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a causal relationship between the movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a reality which could predict their future movements based on observations of their earlier movements.

Both the wave function of quantum mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws are valid definitions of reality because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.

However, this does not mean that they accurately define the environment responsibility for those realities.

For example, at the time of their discovery Newton's gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they did not explain why those those laws exist.

However, Einstein, in his
General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an "alternative reality"
that could explain them in terms of a distortion in space-time. However, it did
not alter or change the **validity** of Newton's gravitational laws when the
velocities were small with respect to the speed of light, they are still valid.

This
shows, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" which could explain
Newton's laws there could be one that defines the predictive powers of quantum
probabilities that would **not affect the validity of those predictions**.
This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives
because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory's mathematics give us
the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.

* As mentioned earlier
quantum mechanics defines reality in terms *of
probabilities,

**However, this would not be true if those
probabilities can be
derived in terms of an interaction between a quantum system and the physical
properties of the universe.**

For example, when we role dice in a casino most do
not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which
one we will occupy after the roll. This is because the probability of getting a
six is related to or caused by its physical interaction with properties of the
table in the casino where it is rolled. **In other words, what ****defines
the reality getting a six**** is
not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice
interacts with casino it occupies. ** Putting it another way.
the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the
casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

As was mentioned earlier many proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities because it describes the interactions of a quantum system with the universe in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. This means there must a separated universe for all possible outcomes of an event.

However, even though the reality that appears when a dice is rolled in a casino can be determined in terms of a probably does not mean all possibilities appear in their own separate casino. This is because as was mentioned earlier the probabilities involved in the roll of dice does not define the reality of the casino but that the casino defines those probabilities. In other words, the fact that casino define the probability of the role of dice tells us that it will have definite outcome in the casino

* Similarly, just because quantum
mechanics *describes
the interactions of a quantum system with the universe in terms of probabilities

This also shows how one defines reality depends on if all you care about is that a six appears on the roll of dice or if you want know why you rolled it.

*****

8. Is it possible to derive quantum gravity in terms of the properties of space time.

As the Scientific American article "Is Gravity Quantum?" tell us quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave as define in terms of the mathematics of the the wave function. For instance, quanta of light are called photons. Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak and therefore detecting them is extremely difficult.

Einstein, on the other hand defines gravity terms of the a curvature in space-time caused by its energy density while using light or the properties of electromagnetic waves in the equation E=mc^2 to define the mass equivalent of the energy.

Therefore, to derive quantum gravity in terms of space-time one must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of space-time is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier the wave function is what defines the evolution of gravitons.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. This means to derive quantum gravity in terms of space-time one must physically connect it to an electromagnetic wave.

(Einstein defined the medium responsible for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he derived gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it. This is because it shows the alternating physical curvatures caused by peak and valleys of a wave through its geometry can support its movement.)

One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the concepts of Einstein's theories to define both the energy density of space responsible of gravity and the particle properties of mass and the graviton as defined by quantum mechanics in terms of an electromagnetic in space time.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact Relatively tells us the energy of an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanic also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to COLLAPSE thereby increasing the energy density at the point where that collapse occurred. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. Therefore any changes in that energy density must also be quantized.

This shows if one assumes the wave function is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time one can explain quantum gravity and why its is made of gravitons or quanta of energy in terms of physical properties of space time. This is because, as was show above if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through it either by being observed or interacting with something its energy collapses to what quantum mechanics calls graviton. This would make a quantum increase in the energy density of space where the collapse occurred and therefore would make a quantum increase the curvature in space-time that relativity defines as the causality of gravity. Additionally it tells us the curvature in space time which Relativity defines as being the causality of gravity is not continuous but quantized because the energy density that creates its can only be increased or decreased in the quantized units defined by the mathematics of the wave function.

*****

9. Is it possible to derive the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the deterministic space-time universe of Relativity?

There are two ways science attempts to explain and define the behavior of our universe. The first is Quantum mechanics or the branch of physics defines its evolution in terms of the probabilities associated with the wave function. The other is the deterministic universe of Einstein which defines its evolution in terms of a physical interaction between space and time

Specifically, Einstein determines the position of particles in terms of where a distortion in space-time caused by increase in the energy density in the space where it is located.

While quantum mechanics uses the mathematical interpretation of the wave function to define the most probable position of a particle when observed.

Since we all live in the same world you would expect the probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics to be compatible with the deterministic one of Einstein. Unfortunately, they define two different worlds which appear to be incompatible. One defines existence in terms of the probabilities while the other defines it in terms of the deterministic of properties of space and time.

However, even though those probabilities appears to be incompatible with Relativity's deterministic it can be explained in terms of a physical interaction between space and time.

For example, when we role dice in a casino most of us realize the probability of a six appearing is related to or caused by its physical interaction with properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. Putting it another way what defines the fact that six appears is NOT the probability of getting one but the interaction of the dice with the table and the casino it occupies.

Therefore, to integrate the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function in terms of the deterministic properties of space time one must show how and why an interaction between them is responsible for the position of a particle when observed .

One way of doing this is to use the fact that evolutions in both a quantum and space-time environments are controlled by a wave. For example, Relativity defines evolution of space-time in terms of the energy propagated by electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function.

(Einstein provided a mechanism for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he defined gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it. This means we may be to derive the probabilistic environment of quantum mechanics to the deterministic one of Einstein if we can show how an physical interaction between space and time is responsible for those probabilities

This suggests the wave function that governs the evolution of a quantum environment may be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave that governs evolution in the world of Relativity. This means we should be able to derive the probabilistic environment of quantum mechanics in terms of the deterministic properties of an electromagnetic wave in space time.

One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the concepts of Einstein's theories.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact Relatively tells us wave energy moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanic also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to COLLAPSE and concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. However, the particle created when someone observes an electromagnetic wave would occupy an extended volume of space defined by the wavelength of its standing wave.

Putting it another way what defines the fact that a particle appears where it does is NOT determined by probabilities associated with the wave function but the the deterministic interaction of an electromagnetic wave with an observer.

However, the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function is necessary because it defines the position of a particle in terms of mathematical point in space which it randomly defines respect to a center of a particle. Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's center will result in its position, when observed to be randomly distributed in space. This means one must define where it appears in terms of probabilities to average the deviations that are caused by the random placement of that point.

The reason why Relativity is deterministic is because those deviations are average out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets.

This shows it is possible to derive the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the determinism of space-time by assuming the wavefunciton is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic in it.

*****

**10. Is it possible that Gravity and the
relativistic properties of space and time are responsible for Dark energy***.*

**Dark energy is the name given to the force that
appears to be causing the universe's expansion to accelerating. **One
explanation, as is show below is that it is the result of the relativistic
properties of space as defined by Einstein.

Einstein tells us and it has been observed the rate at which time moves is slower is all environments where the gravitation density is greater than where it is being observed from. This means, the further we look back in time, where the gravitational density of the universe was greater the slower time would move and for events to occur from the perspective of the present than they actually did. In other words, this would suggest that it evolved faster in the past and therefore is younger than the present value suggests if considers the Relativistic slowing of time when determining the expansion rate of the universe.

However, we also know the gravitational density of
the universe has a nonlinear slowing effect on its expansion because its
attractive properties decrease as its volume increase due to its expansion.
In other words, the gravitational density has an opposite effect on its
expansion.* Therefore, to determine the actual the rate of expansion of the
universe at each point in its history one must not only take into account the
time dilation due to its gravitational density but also the slowing effect that
density has on its expansion at each of those point.* In other words,
one makes it

Yet, because of the non-linear effects between the
time dilation created by its gravitational density and the effects that density
has on the universe rate of expansion there will be a point in its history were
one will* APPEAR *to overtake the other MAKING IT
APPEAR AS IF ITS EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING.

The fact that it has been observed that about 4 billion years ago the universe's expansion change from decelerating to an accelerated phase gives us a way to verify the above hypothesis.

For example, if one calculates **the
expansion rate of the universe **by
taking into account the
APPARENT speeding up of its evolution resulting from the increase rate at which
time passes due to the decreasing gravitational density of an expanding universe
and finds that it counteracts slowing effect cause by that density** about **4
billion years ago **it
would go a long way to verify the above mechanism.**

Some may say that gravitational time dilation would not effect the timing of the expansion because it is also expanding. However, Einstein define the time dilation only in terms of the effects of a differential gravitational potential has on it therefore an expanding universe will have not effect it.

Some have suggested because the universe is expanding the gravitational density is expanding and weakening at the same rate therefore when we look back the effects it will have on the timing of its expansion will cancel. However, Einstein tells us the timing of events that cause the universe to expand in the past is locked along with the gravitation density of the universe at the time the expansion took place Therefore, we must measure the the timing of the events that define the them from the perspective of the gravitational density when we look at when those events took place.

Others may also say the time slowing effect as discussed in this post is introduced in this calculation, the age of the universe might come down heavily. This would be true if time was the only factor that must be considered when defining the rate of the universe expansion. For example the gravitational density of the universe would not only effect the passage of time but also it would cause a slowing of expansion due to its attractive forces. Therefore, to define its actual expansion rate one must take into account both slowing effect of gravities attractive forces and the effects it has on time. The apparent change over to an accelerating universe occurs because of the non-linear relationship that gravity has on time and the expansion rate. It is possible if one takes both the magnitude of gravity attractive force has on the universe expansion rate and time dilation on its expansion we may discover that it is older than the currently accepted value of 13 billion years.

*****

13 Electromagnetism

In his formulation of electromagnetism Maxwell described light as a propagating electromagnetic wave created by the interaction of its electric and magnetic fields.

While Einstein derived gravity in terms of a distortion in space-time

However, he was unable to explain its propagation and properties in the same terms as was documented by the American Institute of Physics

“From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation ” for a unified field theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together” occupied more of Einstein’s years than any other activity.

But he did gave us a way to unite them when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity or light. This is because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four-dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to define a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

*In other words, his mathematics gives us the ability to define the
properties of an electromagnetic wave in terms of either space-time or four
*spatial* dimensions.*

This allows one to define its properties by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics to four *spatial* dimensions.

For example, a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. A force is developed by that differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become "attracted" to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly, an energy wave on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that "surface" to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by an energy wave moving on a "surface" of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become "attracted" to each other resulting as the wave moves through space.

This defines the causality of the attractive electrical forces associated with an electromagnetic wave in terms of a force developed as the wave moves through four *spatial* dimensions by a differential displacement of a point on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar electrical forces of an electromagnetic wave repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitude of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly, the magnitude of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar electrical forces will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, similar electrical forces will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can also derive the magnetic component of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the horizontal force developed by the displacement caused by its peaks and troughs. This would be analogous to how the perpendicular displacement of a mountain generates a horizontal force on the surface of the earth, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

Additionally, one can derive the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic field in terms of the energy associated with its "peaks" and "troughs" that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement because classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it. This force is called magnetism.

*As was mentioned earlier Einstein's his mathematics gives us the
ability to define the properties of an electromagnetic wave and gravity in terms
of either space-time or four *spatial* dimensions. Therefore, by explaining the
properties of electromagnetic waves in terms of four *spatial* dimensions means
that explanation also apply to four dimensional space-time. In other words it
unites electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together in a unified
field theory.*

*****

15. An alternative explanation for "anisotropy" in the cosmic background radiation

In the 1950s, there were two competing theories regarding the origin of the universe.

The first or the Steady State Theory was formulated by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle. It postulated that the universe was homogeneous in space and time and had remained that way forever.

The second is called the Big Bang theory, which is based on the observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929 that the universe was expanding.

However, a few physicists led by George Gamow a proponent of the big bang model showed an expanding universe meant that it might have had its beginning in a very hot infinitely dense environment, which then expanded to generate the one we live in today.

They were able to show only radiation emitted approximately 300,000 years after the beginnings of the expansion should be visible today because before that time the universe was so hot that protons and electrons existed only as free ions making the universe opaque to radiation. It was only after it cooled enough due to is expansion to enable protons and electrons to join did it become visible. This period is referred as the age of "recombination".

Additionally, they predicted this Cosmic Background Radiation or what was left over from the age of recombination would have cooled form several thousand degrees Kelvin back when it was generated to 2.7 today due to the expansion of the universe.

The conflict between the Steady State and Big Bang Theory was resolved when it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 because it showed the temperature of the universe had changed through time, which was a direct contradiction to the Steady State Model".

However, if the universe began as an expansion of in an infinitely dense hot environment one would expect the universe and the Cosmic Background Radiation to be homogeneous because an infinitely dense one must have been, by definition homogeneous. Therefore, if the universe was homogeneous when it began it should still be.

But the existence of galactic clusters and the variations in the intensity of the cosmic background radiation discovered by NASA's WMAP satellite showed the universe is not and therefore, was not homogeneous either now or at the time when the Cosmic Background Radiation was emitted.

Many proponents of the big bang model assume that these "anisotropy" in the universe are caused by quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space. They define quantum fluctuations as a temporary change in the energy of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

However, we still have not been able to determine if the universe will continue to expand indefinitely or if it will eventually collapse in on itself. But if it did collapse the heat generated could provide another explanation for the "anisotropy" in the Cosmic Background other than quantum fluctuations if it was enough to cause protons and electrons to become ionized again. This is because the radiation pressure caused by the heat of its collapse would result in it expanding and cooling which would enable protons and electron to rejoin.

If this were the case it would suggest that the "anisotropy" in the CBM may not be due to any quantum phenomena as is suggested by the Big Bang theory but by an unevenness of the collapse of universe.

One could VALIDATE this idea by determining if and when the heat or radiation pressure generated by its collapse would become great enough to cause it to expand. If it is found at that point in time that it was enough to separate protons and electrons so they exist only as ions then another the age of "recombination" would occur when it expanded. Additionally, it may be possible use the radiation pressure at the point where the expansion began to determine its rate. This means one could use that value to predict the percentage of the base elements such as hydrogen and helium present in the early universe as the proton electron joined to form them. If these values agree with the percentage required to explain their current concentrations it would have a tendency to verify this mechanism for the CBM

In other words, there is another explain of the "anisotropy" in the Cosmic Background Radiation other than quantum fluctuations other than the one promoted by the Big Bang theory.

*****

18. The errors in the Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical formulas and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.

The idea the universe was smaller in the beginning was supported by Edwin Hubble in 1929 it expanding.

Later, a few physicists led by George Gamow a proponent of the big bang model showed an expanding universe meant that it might have had its beginning in a very hot infinitely dense environment, which then expanded to generate the one we live in today.

They were able to show only radiation emitted approximately 300,000 years after the beginnings of the expansion should be visible today because before that time the universe was so hot that protons and electrons existed only as free ions making the universe opaque to radiation. This period is referred as the age of "recombination".

Additionally, they predicted this Cosmic Background Radiation or what was left over from the age of recombination would have cooled form several thousand degrees Kelvin back when it was generated to 2.7 today due to the expansion of the universe. Many thought its discovery 1965 by Penzias and Wilson provided its verification

However, there was a problem with assuming the universe begin as an expansion of in an infinitely dense hot environment because one would expect it and the Cosmic Background Radiation to be homogeneous because an infinitely dense environment must have been, by definition homogeneous. Therefore, if the universe was homogeneous when it began it should still be.

But the existence of galactic clusters and the variations in the intensity of the cosmic background radiation discovered by NASA's WMAP satellite showed the universe is not and therefore, was not homogeneous either now or at the time when the Cosmic Background Radiation was emitted.

Many proponents of the big bang model assume that these "anisotropy" in the universe are caused by quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space. They define quantum fluctuations as a temporary change in the energy of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

**However, there is an error in the math used to
predict both effects the expansion of singularity at its origin and quantum
fluctuations in the energy density of space would have on the evolution of the
universe.**

Einstein mathematics tell us time slows as the gravitational or energy density increases and will eventually stop if it becomes great enough. While observation of black holes provides verification of his math because it is observed that time does slow to a stop when it reaches a critical energy density at its event horizon. Additionally, Schwarzschild was able to use Einstein's math to calculate the radius of a black hole were the energy density would be great enough to stop time.

**This means the math used by the proponents of
the big bang is INCORRECT if they did not include the effect the energy density
around a singularity or quantum fluctuation would have on its evolution.**

This is because observationally verified math of
Schwarzschild tells us there is a minimum radius the total energy content of the
universe can occupy for time to move forward.** Since ***evolution
cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped that is *also
MINIMUM RADIUS of the universe which could expand form which IS larger than a
singularity.

In other words, if they had included the effect energy density has on time, they would have realized that the universe could not have originated from a singularity.

**Some may say that the energy density of expanding
universe would not effect the rate at which time passes but they would be wrong
because Einstein's tells us it is only related to its differential energy
density. In other words, he tells us the rate at which time slows and where it
would stop and prevent further expansion would be determined by the differential
energy density between the center of its expansion and its outer edge. This
point would define the minimum volume it would have to have before its expansion
could take place.**

However, there is a similar error in the math behind the assumption that quantum fluctuations are responsible for "anisotropy" in Cosmic Background Radiation because energy could not expand from one because the energy density surrounding it would cause time to stop. Therefore, quantum fluctuation could not affect the evolution of the universe or be responsible for "anisotropy" in Cosmic Background Radiation because as was just mentioned evolution cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

Some might disagree because they say the energy in a singularity and that contained in a quantum fluctuation would be powerful enough to overcome the stopping of time predicted by Einstein mathematics. However, they would be wrong again because the mathematics of Einstein tells that when the energy density reaches a certain level time will stop. It does not say that an increase beyond that point will allow time to move again.

As was mentioned earlier, current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical formulas and model

However, we may be able to define the origin of the present universe in terms of its observable properties.

We still have not been able to determine if the universe will continue to expand indefinitely or if it will eventually collapse in on itself. However, if one assumes it does, we could develop a mathematically model which would tell us when the heat generated by its collapse would be enough to cause it to re-expand. Additionally, one could determine if that heat occurred AFTER that required to free protons and electrons from each other thereby allowing another age of "recombination" when it started to re-expand.

This would also give mathematicians the ability to more precisely determine the age of universe because we can observe when age of "recombination" occurred and project back from that point in time to when the additional heat generated by its continued collapse was great enough to cause it to re-expand.

In others words we have the ability to **define the
origin of the present universe and anisotropy" in **Cosmic Background
Radiation in terms of a mathematical model based on real time observations of
the present universe.

The science of Astrophysics is base almost exclusively on observations. Therefore, the question they must ask themselves is "If we have two models for the origin of the universe that predict the same outcome which one should we assume is correct?" The one that make is predictions based on the observable properties of our present universe or one that defines it origins in terms of the unobservable properties of a singularity.

**19Mathematics verses observations**

One thing all theoreticians especially cosmologist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to predict observations but only one can define the reason why they occur.

History has shown assuming the existence of something based primarily on the predictive powers of mathematics and not on observations of how an environment evolves can be dangerous.

For example, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, many thought the existence of epicycles were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.

It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus's publication of his heliocentric theory and Galileo's observation of the phase of the moons of Jupiter did many European scientists consider the fact that epicycles did not exist.

This is true even though many Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.

However, why did it take almost two thousand years for them to realize their ideas were incorrect?

One reason may have been because the math that used epicycles was able to predict their positions within the observational tolerances of the equipment they used to define them. However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem with it because, at least on earth, objects "naturally" follow a curve path NOT one composed of epicycles.

However, because they were still able to make accurate predictions of a planet's position based on the existence of epicycles they were able to ignore those observations and suppress the more accurate Greek, Indian and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years.

Yet they could not ignore the direct observational evidence provided by Galileo Galilei when in 1610 when he observed the evolution of phases of Venus that planets did not revolve around the earth. This caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric concept of our solar system could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 in if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved on earth.

However, it would still be possible to use the math associated with the geocentric model along a powerful enough computer to predict the position of the planets within the tolerance of our modern instrumentation even though that math does not correctly define the evolution of their movement.

This FACT tell us that it is even more important now that we use observation of how a system evolves as well math to verify our understanding of their environments today because the advance state of mathematics and computing makes it even more likely that models can be made that are within the tolerance of our observing equipment even though they may be based on a false mathematical premise.

One way of reducing the possibility of this happening would be to use observations from the earth of how systems evolve similar to the way the Greek, Indian and Muslim savants mentioned earlier did to define the math instead of using the math to define their evolution.

Scientist must realize that that math is only a tool to define the evolution of observations not a replacement for it.

23. What is Dark Matter a simple answer

This reposting contains corrections and clarifications to answer the concerns of disbelievers

Dark Matter is a form of matter which is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total mass–energy density or about 2.241×10^27 kg/m3. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including the gravitational affects has on the orbits of stars in galaxies which cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. The reason it is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, which is why it is difficult to detect.

However, we disagree that it cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity because Einstein defined it in terms of the "depth" of a gravity well or distortion in the "surface" of space-time caused by the energy density of an environment and NOT on existence of visible of baryonic matter. This means the energy of electromagnetic fields, photons and all other forms of energy along with that associated with visible matter must be taken consideration when determining the energy density of space and therefore the depth of a gravity in it.

In other words, according to Einstein the energy of all forms of energy including photons in the universe must contribute along with the visible matter to define its total gravitation potential.

This suggest the reason it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field is because it is an electromagnetic field.

Some might say, if photons and the other forms of energy were responsible for Dark Matter, they should have an observable effect on the orbits of planets as well as those of stars in galaxies. However, because the directional energy of photons is opposite to that of visible matter in stars it prevents the gravitational energy of the visible matter from sinking to the bottom of a star's gravity well.

This would be analogous to a jar of water and oil. One could say the water prevents oil from sinking to the bottom because it is more buoyant or its directional energy is opposite to that of the water. Therefore, it determines how deep the oil is below the top of the jar. However, the total depth of the water and oil is determined by adding their individual heights above the bottom of the jar. The same is would be true in a star because the oppositely directed energy of photons would prevent the energy of the visible matter from falling to the bottom of its gravity well.

**However, because gravity well of a solar system would have
the same "depth" as the star that supports it the planets orbiting it would only
be affected by gravitational energy associated its visible matter.**

(The fact that a photons energy keeps the visible matter in stars from collapsing to a black hole is observational verification they do not allow it to collapse to the bottom of its gravity well).

The reasons why gravitational effects of a photon's energy can be observed in the orbits of individual stars in galaxies is because they are gravitational bound to the galactic center. Therefore, they would interact with the total gravitational energy of each solar system they encounter. This would be analogous to measuring the height of the water and oil from outside verses inside the jar in the earlier example. One outside the jar would add the height to the oil to water to get its total height while one inside it would measure it from the oil water line. Similarly. if one views the gravity well of a solar system from outside of it one would have to measure the contribution provided by both the visible matter and photons and the other form of energy mentioned earlier to determine its depth. However, if one was part of a solar system or inside the jar so to speak one would measure its gravity well from the energy level of the visible or baryonic matter.

However, any form of energy that counteracts gravity must also be part of the dark matter component of the universe. For example, the rotational energy of the stars orbiting a galactic center would be a component of dark matter because it also adds to the energy density of the space they occupy. It would be considered Dark Matter because its rotational energy counteracts gravitational energy of a galaxies visible matter and therefore would result in decreasing the depth of its gravity well associated with its visible matter. In other words, not only do you have to double the gravitational energy density that is contributed by the visible matter in stars because, as was shown earlier it is offset by at least an equal amount of the photon's energy, you must also add the rotational energy of the visible matter to the Dark Matter component in the stars to determine its content in galaxies. Additionally, the fact that galaxies are gravitational bound in galactic clusters means you must also consider the energy density contributed by their rotational energy to determine the universe total Dark mater component

It should be remembered, Einstein defined the depth of a gravity well in space in terms of the absolute value of its energy density. Therefore, to determine the total gravitational potential of both Dark and visible matter one must include all forms of energy including visible mass, to determine their value.

*****

**2****7. Could Black holes be responsible for the expansion
period in our universe's history?**

The Big Bang theory tells us that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, it was all compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity which suddenly, for some unknown reason began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.

However, another idea which has not been considered is that our universe has its origins in the expansion of a black hole NOT a singularity.

Some will probably say that is it crazy to assume that a black hole can expand however I think it is crazier to assume that the expansion of a single one-dimensional point called a singularity can result in the observable properties of our universe.

As observations of stars show, what prevents it from collapsing to a black hole is a balance between the internal heat generated by the nuclear reactions and the gravitational forces of it mass.

Cosmologists have not yet been able to determine if the universe will keep on expanding or enter a contraction phase. However, its contraction would cause its temperature increase.

As was just mentioned what prevents a star from clasping to a black hole is a balance between gravity and its temperature. Therefore, the increase in the temperature of the universe as it collapses will upset the gravitational balance of all the black holes it contains causing their event horizon to expand. This will result in the release of some of their stored gravitational energy to space, creating a positive feedback loop that would increase the overall rate at which the temperature of the universe increases. The energy released by a single one would only result in a small increase in that rate and therefore the rate of the universe expansion. However, the cascading release of energy due to the positive feed from a large number over a short period of time COULD result in a very rapid expansion.

One advantage to basing a model of our expanding universe on the release of the energy stored in black holes is that it defines a mechanism for the start of its expansion in terms of an observable properties of our universe. Additionally, one can, through observations estimate the total energy content of all of the black holes in universe AT THE TIME OF ITS COLLAPSE based on how many presently exist. This would allow one to determine it rate of its expansion from the beginning based on the quantity of energy they released.

To determine if this IDEA is viable solution to the origins of the universe one would have to first determine if heat can cause a black hole to release it stored gravitational energy. If it can one may be able to mathematically quantify the temperature required for that to occur. We may also be able to estimate the temperature the complete collapse of the universe would attain. If that value is greater than the temperature required to cause a black hole to release its energy it would add creditability to the above IDEA. After that it may be possible to determine the rate at which the temperature would increase due cascading release of the gravitational energy from black holes. If that is possible, we may be able derive the rate of the universe expansion at every point in its history including the point when its expansion began.

In other words, it would allow us to define our universe's expansion based on the mathematical analysis of the observable properties of our environment instead of the unobservable properties of a quantum singularity as is suggest by the big bang model.

*****