Version 1
: Received: 9 February 2024 / Approved: 12 February 2024 / Online: 12 February 2024 (16:26:11 CET)
How to cite:
Edwards, M.R. In an Eggshell: Baryonic Black Hole Universe with CMB Cycle for Gravity and Λ. Preprints2024, 2024020712. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0712.v1
Edwards, M.R. In an Eggshell: Baryonic Black Hole Universe with CMB Cycle for Gravity and Λ. Preprints 2024, 2024020712. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0712.v1
Edwards, M.R. In an Eggshell: Baryonic Black Hole Universe with CMB Cycle for Gravity and Λ. Preprints2024, 2024020712. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0712.v1
APA Style
Edwards, M.R. (2024). In an Eggshell: Baryonic Black Hole Universe with CMB Cycle for Gravity and Λ. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0712.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Edwards, M.R. 2024 "In an Eggshell: Baryonic Black Hole Universe with CMB Cycle for Gravity and Λ" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0712.v1
Abstract
A persistent idea in cosmology is that the universe originated and then continued to evolve as a black hole. While the notion of a black hole universe has generally been framed within the standard cosmological model, the latter has had numerous problems related to dark matter, dark energy and other issues. To avoid such problems an alternative is proposed which omits cosmic expansion, dark matter and dark energy. The observable universe is cast instead as primarily a thin spherical shell of cold (~29 K) baryonic matter situated near the Hubble radius. This shell of plasma holds 95% of the observable universe’s mass, the remaining 5% existing in the interior galaxies and gas clouds. A key premise of the model is that spacetime is fundamentally photonic in nature. This allows photon energy to be transferred to spacetime in the Hubble redshift and to be transferred back to photons in a novel blueshift. These exchanges together drive a cosmic energy cycle for gravity and the cosmological constant, Λ. Photons of the cosmic microwave background originating in the plasma shell lose energy to ‘cooler’ regions of spacetime in interior zones via the Hubble redshift. This gives rise to gravity through the optical gravity approach. The depleted photons moving back towards the shell are then reenergized in ‘hotter’ spacetime regions via the Hubble blueshift. These photons eventually exert outward pressures on the shell which perfectly balance the inward forces of gravity, in this manner functioning as Einstein’s cosmological constant. The observable universe behaves as a closed system in thermodynamic equilibrium with constant energy and entropy and indeterminate age. Black holes are suggested to have analogous plasma shell structures and gravity/Λ cycles.
Keywords
cosmic microwave background; Hubble redshift; black hole; black hole universe; gravastar; optical gravity
Subject
Physical Sciences, Astronomy and Astrophysics
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment:
Hello Mr. Matthew R. Edwards, I have read your paper and would like to ask you some questions:
1. Regarding the curvature of space-time associated with gravitons:
The first thing I want to know is whether the curvature of space-time associated with gravitons in your paper is Ricci curvature or conformal curvature? This question is based on another paper that I have been paying attention to for a long time. (Petti RJ (1986) On the local geometry of rotating matter. Gen Relativ Gravit 18:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00770462)
One thing was mentioned in Mr. Petti's paper: "It is an old theme in general relativity that source terms can be replaced by boundary conditions around the region containing the sources, or by topological structures like "wormholes" on the other side of the boundary/throat." This can also be seen briefly in one of the references in your paper: "The boundary of the black hole (event horizon) becomes an Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole) connecting this universe with the outer universe in which the black hole exists." (Popławski N. Universe in a black hole in Einstein‐Cartan gravity. Astrophys J (2016) 832:96. doi:10.3847/0004‐637X/832/2/96)
Mr. Petti further mentioned in his paper: "Generally, those fields which propagate by differential lawsconformal curvature and electromagnetic wavesare able to exist in sourceless regions of space-time. Those fields which do not propagate Ricci curvature, electromagnetic divergences, and torsionare equal to their source terms and can be replaced by boundaries or throats." Mr. Susskind, whom you mentioned in this paper, once proposed a conjecture: ER = EPR. (J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Cool horizons for entangled black holes, Fortsch. Phys. 61 (2013) 781) If combined with Mr. Petti's paper, it will lead to some inferences.
Since non-propagating fields are equal to their source terms and can be replaced by "wormholes", combined with the ER = EPR conjecture, this is equivalent to saying that non-propagating fields can be replaced by "entanglement"; moreover, since in quantum field theory, if a field exists, its corresponding particle must also exist. The result of combining the above is to say in a sense: entanglement is a kind of particle.
You mentioned in a previous paper: "the graviton filaments would of necessity move in concert with the masses which anchor them" (Edwards MR. Gravity from refraction of CMB photons using the optical‐mechanical analogy in general relativity. Astrophys Space Sci (2014) 351:401‐406.), and in another: "spacetime consists of no more than the tight lattices of graviton beams generated by and connecting all the particles in the visible universe." (Edwards MR. Optical gravity in a graviton spacetime. Optik (2022) 260:169059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.169059) This description of the graviton seems to be non-propagative, as the Ricci curvature said in Mr. Petti's paper and he mentioned: "The derivation of torsion from translational holonomy and of curvature from rotational holonomy of developed curves are implementations of the well- known relationships between torsion and dislocation density and between curvature and disinclination density."
You said in your previous paper: "A graviton spacetime would seemingly furnish a basis for quantum entanglement, as every particle is linked to every other particle through graviton filaments.", and at the end of this paper you mentioned: "Photonic spacetime would after all be particularly well‐suited to incorporate quantum entanglement, as all particles within the observable universe would be physically interconnected by filaments of photon‐like gravitons." Such an argument seems to be related to Mr. Petti's paper and the ER = EPR conjecture.
However, you also mentioned in your previous paper: "The energy and momentum lost from a graviton by refraction would then simply be transferred to other gravitons or gravitational waves (GWs) moving in different directions", the graviton described in this way seems to propagate, just like the conformal curvature mentioned in Mr. Petti's paper, which makes me confused. Due to the above arguments, I would like to know whether the curvature associated with gravitons in your previous and this paper is Ricci curvature which is non-propagating or conformal curvature which is propagating.
If possible, I would also like to know your personal views on Mr. Petti's paper and the ER = EPR conjecture.
2. Regarding the similarities between paired photon vacuum and neutrino theory of light:
The paired photon vacuum you quoted in this paper reminds me of the neutrino theory of light. Currently, the neutrino theory of light is largely ignored because neutrino oscillations are thought to imply that neutrinos have non-zero mass.
It is true that because Einstein-Cartan torsion may exist, the neutrino theory of light still has a glimmer of hope. (V. De Sabbata, M. Gasperini, Neutrino oscillations in the presence of torsion. Nuovo Cim. A 65, 479 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02902051) (S. Chakrabarty, A. Lahiri, Eur. J. Phys. C 79, 697 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8128-y) However, due to the difficulty of verifying the Einstein-Cartan torsion itself, it is currently difficult to develop and verify the neutrino theory of light.
I would like to know, sir, whether you think paired photon vacuum will encounter a similar dilemma, and your personal views on the neutrino theory of light.
The above are some questions that I would like to ask you, sir, and I hope to get your answers.
Commenter's Conflict of Interests:
I am one of the author
Comment:
Hi Jerome,
Thank you for your comments and queries. You had posted them also at ResearchGate and so I will just summarize my reply there. I use the term gravitons not to mean the carriers of the gravitational force, but rather as the quanta of photonic energy which form these filaments I describe. The filaments interconnect all particles with mass. The gravitons are somewhat like the virtual photons within atomic structures. They represent quanta of gravitational potential energy, such that the closer two particles are to each other the more graviton energy in the filaments connecting them.
In your comments you are trying to draw links between my model and other expressions of general relativity. I have been cautious in doing so, as for a long time I did not see clear connections. I thus largely describe things in classical terms. In the preprint I used the Newtonian argument that the metric within the non-expanding spherical shell was flat and Minkowski. However, I have recently come across a relatively new approach in general relativity which points to the space inside any spherical shell of matter as having definite curvature. This method provides a stronger foundation for my model and will feature in my paper once published.
On the neutrino theory of light, unfortunately I do not see any connections between the two models.
You mentioned two of my earlier papers and I just wanted to clear up one point of possible confusion. In the earliest one, "Gravity from refraction of CMB photons", I proposed that gravity is caused by CMB photons pushing masses together in gravitation, using a classical mechanism. However, the local CMB with temperature 2.7 K is actually too weak to do this and so in my later paper in Optik I came up with a different mechanism involving gravitational waves and decay of graviton filaments. I then realized that is the much more energetic CMB photons found at remote distances do have just the right energy to drive gravity and so I return to the CMB mechanism in this new preprint.
Hopefully, things will become clearer as we go along.
Commenter:
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
1. Regarding the curvature of space-time associated with gravitons:
The first thing I want to know is whether the curvature of space-time associated with gravitons in your paper is Ricci curvature or conformal curvature? This question is based on another paper that I have been paying attention to for a long time. (Petti RJ (1986) On the local geometry of rotating matter. Gen Relativ Gravit 18:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00770462)
One thing was mentioned in Mr. Petti's paper: "It is an old theme in general relativity that source terms can be replaced by boundary conditions around the region containing the sources, or by topological structures like "wormholes" on the other side of the boundary/throat." This can also be seen briefly in one of the references in your paper: "The boundary of the black hole (event horizon) becomes an Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole) connecting this universe with the outer universe in which the black hole exists." (Popławski N. Universe in a black hole in Einstein‐Cartan gravity. Astrophys J (2016) 832:96. doi:10.3847/0004‐637X/832/2/96)
Mr. Petti further mentioned in his paper: "Generally, those fields which propagate by differential lawsconformal curvature and electromagnetic wavesare able to exist in sourceless regions of space-time. Those fields which do not propagate Ricci curvature, electromagnetic divergences, and torsionare equal to their source terms and can be replaced by boundaries or throats." Mr. Susskind, whom you mentioned in this paper, once proposed a conjecture: ER = EPR. (J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Cool horizons for entangled black holes, Fortsch. Phys. 61 (2013) 781) If combined with Mr. Petti's paper, it will lead to some inferences. Since non-propagating fields are equal to their source terms and can be replaced by "wormholes", combined with the ER = EPR conjecture, this is equivalent to saying that non-propagating fields can be replaced by "entanglement"; moreover, since in quantum field theory, if a field exists, its corresponding particle must also exist. The result of combining the above is to say in a sense: entanglement is a kind of particle.
You mentioned in a previous paper: "the graviton filaments would of necessity move in concert with the masses which anchor them" (Edwards MR. Gravity from refraction of CMB photons using the optical‐mechanical analogy in general relativity. Astrophys Space Sci (2014) 351:401‐406.), and in another: "spacetime consists of no more than the tight lattices of graviton beams generated by and connecting all the particles in the visible universe." (Edwards MR. Optical gravity in a graviton spacetime. Optik (2022) 260:169059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.169059) This description of the graviton seems to be non-propagative, as the Ricci curvature said in Mr. Petti's paper and he mentioned: "The derivation of torsion from translational holonomy and of curvature from rotational holonomy of developed curves are implementations of the well- known relationships between torsion and dislocation density and between curvature and disinclination density."
You said in your previous paper: "A graviton spacetime would seemingly furnish a basis for quantum entanglement, as every particle is linked to every other particle through graviton filaments.", and at the end of this paper you mentioned: "Photonic spacetime would after all be particularly well‐suited to incorporate quantum entanglement, as all particles within the observable universe would be physically interconnected by filaments of photon‐like gravitons." Such an argument seems to be related to Mr. Petti's paper and the ER = EPR conjecture.
However, you also mentioned in your previous paper: "The energy and momentum lost from a graviton by refraction would then simply be transferred to other gravitons or gravitational waves (GWs) moving in different directions", the graviton described in this way seems to propagate, just like the conformal curvature mentioned in Mr. Petti's paper, which makes me confused. Due to the above arguments, I would like to know whether the curvature associated with gravitons in your previous and this paper is Ricci curvature which is non-propagating or conformal curvature which is propagating.
If possible, I would also like to know your personal views on Mr. Petti's paper and the ER = EPR conjecture.
2. Regarding the similarities between paired photon vacuum and neutrino theory of light:
The paired photon vacuum you quoted in this paper reminds me of the neutrino theory of light. Currently, the neutrino theory of light is largely ignored because neutrino oscillations are thought to imply that neutrinos have non-zero mass.
It is true that because Einstein-Cartan torsion may exist, the neutrino theory of light still has a glimmer of hope. (V. De Sabbata, M. Gasperini, Neutrino oscillations in the presence of torsion. Nuovo Cim. A 65, 479 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02902051) (S. Chakrabarty, A. Lahiri, Eur. J. Phys. C 79, 697 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8128-y) However, due to the difficulty of verifying the Einstein-Cartan torsion itself, it is currently difficult to develop and verify the neutrino theory of light.
I would like to know, sir, whether you think paired photon vacuum will encounter a similar dilemma, and your personal views on the neutrino theory of light.
The above are some questions that I would like to ask you, sir, and I hope to get your answers.
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
Thank you for your comments and queries. You had posted them also at ResearchGate and so I will just summarize my reply there. I use the term gravitons not to mean the carriers of the gravitational force, but rather as the quanta of photonic energy which form these filaments I describe. The filaments interconnect all particles with mass. The gravitons are somewhat like the virtual photons within atomic structures. They represent quanta of gravitational potential energy, such that the closer two particles are to each other the more graviton energy in the filaments connecting them.
In your comments you are trying to draw links between my model and other expressions of general relativity. I have been cautious in doing so, as for a long time I did not see clear connections. I thus largely describe things in classical terms. In the preprint I used the Newtonian argument that the metric within the non-expanding spherical shell was flat and Minkowski. However, I have recently come across a relatively new approach in general relativity which points to the space inside any spherical shell of matter as having definite curvature. This method provides a stronger foundation for my model and will feature in my paper once published.
On the neutrino theory of light, unfortunately I do not see any connections between the two models.
You mentioned two of my earlier papers and I just wanted to clear up one point of possible confusion. In the earliest one, "Gravity from refraction of CMB photons", I proposed that gravity is caused by CMB photons pushing masses together in gravitation, using a classical mechanism. However, the local CMB with temperature 2.7 K is actually too weak to do this and so in my later paper in Optik I came up with a different mechanism involving gravitational waves and decay of graviton filaments. I then realized that is the much more energetic CMB photons found at remote distances do have just the right energy to drive gravity and so I return to the CMB mechanism in this new preprint.
Hopefully, things will become clearer as we go along.
Regards,
Matt