markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

essay: AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR GRAVITY WAVES

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR GRAVITY WAVES

by Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast)

SUMMARY OF THE ESSAY

During the first run of their gravity-wave detectors, from 12-Sept.-2015 to 19-Jan.-2016, the folks at LIGO [Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory] observed two, or possibly three, gravity waves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations] … According to the prevailing theory in physics, these gravity waves were produced by the merging of two large objects in space [“black holes”] … However, based on Dr. Ernest Sternglass’s model, one can offer an alternative explanation for what causes gravity waves … Plus, using some statistical and geometrical considerations, one can predict the approximate frequency of gravity-wave detections which the folks at LIGO might expect in the near future …

This essay includes a detailed treatment of the above-mentioned alternative explanation for what causes gravity waves, and also a brief treatment of some of the statistical and geometrical considerations which might make it possible to correctly predict the approximate frequency of gravity-wave detections to expect …

TEXT OF THE ESSAY

Using Sternglass’s model, one can offer an explanation for what causes gravity waves, which is different from that of the standard model … If Sternglass is correct, then the process which produces gravity waves might involve, not the merging of two large objects, as the standard model says, but the dividing in half of a single large object …

[{ Likewise, Sternglass explains the immense power output of a “quasar” as due to, not the sucking in of ordinary matter by a “black hole”,  but as due to the spitting out of large amounts of matter + energy by objects which are more like “white holes” ]} …

To understand how these “alternative” explanations might be true, one needs to be aware of at least the basics of Sternglass’s model, which he details in his book … If one is not willing to study the book [Ref.#1], and/or one or more of Sternglass’s published papers [Refs. #2a, 2b, 2c, 2d], then much of what follows in this essay might not seem believable …

{[ BTW, and FYI:  The book is available at http://www.AMAZON.com ]} …

Many years ago Dr. John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) —–[one of the most well-respected PhD-holders in 20th century physics]—– speculated re the existence of a kind of “stuff” in our universe which he called “GEONs” [Ref.#3] … In his “electron-positron pair model of matter” [Ref.#1], Dr. Ernest Sternglass (1923-2015) theorized the existence of a kind of “stuff” which is similar to Wheeler’s “geons”, calling them “cosmological systems” [cosmo.systs] … According to Sternglass’s model, these cosmo.systs can be of almost any size or mass, from that of a star or galaxy, to that of a pi-meson, or perhaps even smaller;  and for every cosmo.syst, its mass is proportional to the square of its radius, regardless of its size …

In his “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1], Sternglass lists “masses, sizes, and rotational periods of cosmological systems predicted by the electron-positron pair model of matter” … If Sternglass is correct, then this is the kind of “stuff” which was responsible for both the so-called “big bang” and the production of all the protons + neutrons which now exist …

The Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter

To briefly summarize Sternglass’s model:  it involves a long divide-in-half scenario, in which the largest cosmo.syst, a theoretical “PRIMEVAL ATOM” —–(first proposed by Georges LeMaitre [Refs. #4a, 4b, 4c])—– initially contains all the mass/energy, (i.e., all the “stuff”), in our universe, and produces everything currently in our universe by the simple trick of dividing in half, repeatedly … I call this divide-in-half scenario “the countdown to the big bang”, because it ends when the many trillions of tiny objects produced by it suddenly re-configure in a way which  (1) produces many trillions of neutrons, most of which quickly “decay”, producing protons + electrons, and  (2) releases enough energy to power a “big bang” …

Sternglass calls this re-configuration a “phase transition” [p.   , Ref.#1], and compares it to what happens when water freezes:  not only does the freezing process produce a different “phase” of H2O (ice), but also it releases some energy (“binding energy”) — the same amount of energy needed to melt the ice … Likewise, the explosive phase transition which produces protons and neutrons also releases energy — enough to power the big bang …

Thus Sternglass’s model explains the source of the immense amount of energy needed to power the outward expansion of everything in our universe, as well as the birth-process of all the protons + neutrons which now exist … The standard model doesn’t even come close to doing this …

Gravity Waves

The folks at LIGO tell us that their first gravity-wave observation resulted from the merging of two “black holes” whose total mass was approximately 62x that of our sun [Ref.#5] … Conversely, Sternglass’s model predicts that a single object, (which can be of almost any size, from that of a star or galaxy to that of a pi-meson), will eventually divide in half, producing two smaller objects, each containing half the mass …

The model predicts that larger objects need more time to divide in half [Table 1, p.234, Ref.#1]:  e.g., an object whose mass is approx. 62x that of our sun would need approx. 42 years, at the very least, to divide in half … Presumably the object might emit some gravity waves as it divides in half …

Each of the two smaller objects would then, according to the model, need at least (42)/(sq.rt.2) = 30 years to divide in half again, producing four smaller objects … Each of these would then need at least (30)/(sq.rt.2) = 21 years to divide in half again, producing a total of eight objects …

This divide-in-half process continues, eventually producing many trillions of objects, each of a particular (pun intended) size and mass, which then re-configure in an explosive way, already mentioned, producing many trillions of protons + neutrons + electrons, and releasing large amounts of energy …

According to Sternglass, this explosive re-configuration is very similar to the big bang, except that it involves less matter and energy:  he calls it a “delayed mini-Bang” and says that his model predicts that delayed mini-Bangs should be happening during all the time since the start of the big bang …

He says that the “quasars” [also-called “gamma-ray bursters”] which astronomers have observes since the 1970s are in fact the delayed mini-Bangs which his model predicts …

In Sternglass’s model, the divide-in-half process which I call “the countdown to the big bang” is not continuous, but can slow down and/or stop, due to time-dilating effects caused by the large gravity of the objects which divide in half … Otherwise all of the “stuff” would explode at the same time, and there would be no delayed mini-Bangs …

Sternglass says that, due to these gravitationally-induced time-dilation effects, only approx. 1% of the stuff in our universe exploded at the start of the big bang:  the remainder “went along for the ride” so to speak, because it was embedded in and among the stuff which re-configured and exploded …

After the initial explosion at the start of the big bang, and during all the time since then, everything in our universe has been flying outwardly, including the unexploded stuff, which is most of it:  so most of the stuff in our universe is out there in an unexploded form, dormant, lurking in space, while at the same time participating in the steady expansion or our universe …

This is what “dark matter” is:  unexploded bits + pieces of the primeval atom, large and small, unseen and unseeable, each on its own cosmic time-schedule, and likely to explode unexpectedly at any time … And, according to the main premise of this essay, every time when one of these objects divides in half it emits a gravity wave, so that a careful study of gravity-wave observations MIGHT make it possible to predict when to expect an explosion, i.e., when to expect the sighting of a new gamma-ray burster, also-called a “quasar” …

Thus Sternglass’s model explains what “dark matter” is —– also a mystery to standard-model theorists … Every once in a while a bit of this “dark matter” will explode, and astronomers might then report the discovery of a new “quasar” …

More Details

As already mentioned, one needs to be aware of the basics of Sternglass’s model to understand why the descriptions and explanations above might be correct, because the kind of “stuff” in his model is very different from the ordinary stuff (composed mainly of protons + neutrons + electrons) with which we are familiar: these “cosmological systems” [p.234, Ref.#1] contain no protons or neutrons, and are more like pure electromagnetic fields than ordinary matter …

In his book about “geons”, Wheeler described geons as “mass without mass” [p.237, Ref.#3]:   likewise, Sternglass’s “cosmo.systs” contain mass, but no protons or neutrons … And, as already mentioned, the mass of every cosmo.syst is proportional to the square (not the cube) of the system’s radius, another detail which marks it as very different from ordinary matter …

The astronomer Halton Arp found lots of evidence for the correctness of Sternglass’s model, which Sternglass cites in his book [Ref.#1] … Arp found many examples in which a single galaxy seems to have ejected the “seeds” [Sternglass’s word, p.  , Ref.#1] of several smaller galaxies:  Arp made many photographs of this phenomenon, where the smaller galaxies —–(or “quasars” — which seem to be galaxies in the process of forming)—– appear symmetrically positioned around the single larger galaxy:  In each case, radiation coming from the smaller galaxies exhibits a larger redshift than that of the radiation coming from the single larger galaxy …

{[ Please note that, because the standard model has no way to explain such powerful ejections of one or more small galaxy from a large galaxy, there have been robust denials of Arp’s findings … Many standard-model believers prefer to question the accuracy of Arp’s findings rather than to admit that the standard model might be, to say it politely, not quite right … According to these individuals, the smaller galaxies with larger redshifts are much farther away from us than the single larger galaxy in their midst, and it’s only a coincidence of alignment which makes them seem to be parts of the same system … Arp details this controversy in a Youtube-video titled “Halton Arp:  Intrinsic Redshift” [Ref.#6] ]} …

{[ Please note also that Arp himself gives what seems to be an incorrect explanation for his findings, (near the end of the video), saying that they imply that there never was a big bang, thus making it easy for others to regard him as a “crack-pot” ]} …

[{ One can reckon that Arp was not aware of Sternglass’s model, otherwise he might have realized that it provides a clear and precise explanation for his findings ]} …

Regarding Two Different Kinds of Redshift

In the video cited above, Arp refers to the larger redshifts of the smaller galaxies as “intrinsic” redshifts —–(also called “gravitational” redshifts)—– because they depend on the strength of gravity at their point of origin … Because each of the several smaller galaxies [or possibly “quasars” — which seem to be galaxies in the process of forming] is more compact than the single galaxy in their midst, this means that the strength of gravity at the point where radiation from a smaller galaxy originates is stronger than the strength of gravity at the point where radiation from the larger galaxy originates … The stronger gravity at the point of origin causes the radiation to be more strongly redshifted … This is why astronomers observe larger redshifts in the radiation coming from the smaller galaxies, tho they are at almost the same distance from us as the larger galaxy in their midst …

Sternglass details all this, and much more, in his book [Ref.#1]:  In the 2001 edition, at the end are some words which Sternglass added, due to the many discoveries re this phenomenon which astronomers made during the time between 1997 and 2001:

“The high redshifts of … quasars … located near some galaxies with much lower redshifts are not indicative of a much larger distance … but have some other origin.  As discussed above, in the electron-pair theory, there are very high values of the local gravitational constant associated with the residual massive seed-pairs at the centers of newly evolving cosmological ogjects such as recently ejected … quasars.  The high local curvature of space produces a gravitational redshift, well known from both astronomical observations and laboratory experiments, so that recently ejected quasars or dwarf galaxies from the centers of active galaxies can have higher redshifts than the galaxies from which they were ejected, as observed by [Halton] Arp and others” [p.294, Ref.#1, 2001 edition] …

Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast),

Chandler, Arizona, USA,  31-May-2017,  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

Advertisements

One comment on “essay: AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR GRAVITY WAVES

  1. Pingback: BOOK-TITLE: HOW PROTONs WORK: ESSAYS RE THE WORK OF DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on January 14, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: