Member

It is interesting to compare energy and charge, for the two are sometimes confused. To illustrate this confusion, in quantum mechanics the electron is considered to be a point charge, though this writer does not agree. However, this simple assumption has not only confused those who accept quantum mechanics, but it has also confused others who neglect to recognize that this mistake is part of what is today perceived as science. So it infects even those who find the assumptions and non-objective analysis of quantum mechanics unacceptable.

In issue #62 of Infinite Energy magazine (2005) in an article entitled "Two Competing Cosmological Theories" (pages 31-39) this writer established that the Big Bang theory did not fit the facts whereas his 25 year old Universe Cycle theory did. At the start of that article the respective theories were summarized, and at the end of the article it was pointed out that the characteristics of the gamma-ray bursts now being received correlated remarkably well with the overall structure of the universe. To briefly summarize the Universe Cycle theory, the cosmos initially contained an infinite space filled with widely spaced apart supermassive black holes, and our visible universe came into being when these holes exploded in gamma-ray bursts of enormous power.

We exist in a particulate nature in which there are only two particles which possess significant mass at rest and long term independent stability. These are the electron and the proton. So when we consider our particulate nature from the perspective of the independently stable particles which abound around us, the nuclear zoo of particles in that nature can be simplified by focusing on only these two.

Black holes are the most massive and most mysterious objects in the cosmos, and this writer considers them of great importance to the existence and character of the cosmos. Supernovas are the most powerful explosive releases of energy near us and are now considered to be the only observable event which might form a black hole.  Despite the fact that black holes are formed by supernovas, astrophysics ignores the possibility that the actions of black holes and the supernova event might involve the same mechanism.

To consider the respective actions, we must establish the structure of a black hole, for we cannot consider how a black hole functions without understanding the structure of the hole.  We must also consider the action of black holes in ejecting polar jets, for these jets and their formation is filled with mystery.  Then we must consider the supernova event, for it also contains much that is confused.  With these preliminaries in hand we must compare the formation and characteristics of the jets with the supernova event and its ejecta in order to ascertain the extent to which the two are the same or different.  Lastly, we shall explain the common mechanism of action which this writer believes accounts for both the supernova event and the jets of black holes. 

The fine structure constant of atomic spectra is obviously important, but physics today does not understand it.  This writer developed some limited understanding of this constant, but the problem involves some complexities which have not previously been resolved.

There are two aspects of the problem.  First, we can consider the fine structure constant from the perspective of the relationship between the energy-based size of the electron and the spacing between the electron and proton in the hydrogen atom.  This has the obvious advantage of bringing into consideration the structure of the hydrogen atom where the formation of that atom represents the simplest illustration of the formation of the fine structure.

Second, we can consider the fine structure from the perspective of the energy-based size, internal structure and action of the electron.  Those factors are also involved in the formation of atomic spectra, and hence with the formation of the fine structure and its constant character.  This consideration is more difficult than the first one because the structure of the hydrogen atom is not present to assist thinking.  Moreover, there is an apparent inconsistency between the first consideration, as previously presented,  and this one, and that inconsistency needs to be eliminated.

The February 2007 issue of Scientific American has an article entitled ?The Universe?s Invisible Hand? by Christopher I. Conselice which suggests ?Dark Energy may be the key link among several aspects of galaxy formation that used to appear unrelated.? As an overview it is suggested:

?Dark energy is best known as the putative agent of cosmic acceleration.  An unidentified substance that exerts a kind of antigravity force on the universe as a whole.?

This antigravity suggestion is directly inconsistent with Newtonian physics (in which actions at a distance have their origin in matter) based upon ?an unidentified substance? which is to act in a manner inconsistent with the action of any force known to man.  This is an outrageous basis for scientific speculation, particularly where what passes for science today appears to have accepted it, at least to the point where the most widely read scientific magazine considers it worthy of publication.  This damns the modern physics community as well as the magazine which permitted publication.

The distribution of mass and its motion in the cosmos are reviewed from the perspective of the Big Bang theory and this writer?s Universe Cycle theory to determine the extent to which these theories are consistent with the observations.  Particular consideration is given to the low density of the cosmos, the expected product of a primordial explosion, the homogeneous and isotropic distribution suggested by the Cosmological Principal, the clustering of galaxies and the bottom-up scenario for the formation of large cosmological structures.  The expansion of the universe, its age, the theory of inflation and the existence and character of dark energy are also considered.  Lastly, the large scale structure of the universe suggested by the tri-modal distribution of gamma-ray bursts is discussed.

Editor's Note:  The following exchange of views would, by its character, belong in the Correspondence column, for which it would be far too long. However, since its subject concerns fundamental points of physics, it was decided to publish it in the form of a regular paper.