SPIE Conference (San Diego): August 3, 2009

The Nature of Light

Riccardo C. Storti
www.deltagroupengineering.com

 dgE
 Does a Photon have mass, charge & size?

The Particle Data Group (PDG) estimates its mass-energy threshold to be “< 1 x10-18(eV)”
• Based upon solar wind observations

The PDG estimates its charge threshold to be “< 5 x10-30(Qe)”
• Based upon Pulsar observations

The PDG does not assign nor estimate the property of “size”

We calculate its mass-energy to be “mγγ ≤ 3.2 x10-45(eV)”
• Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 207 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.614634
• Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511

We calculate its charge to be “Qγγ ≤ 7.1 x10-60(Qe)”
• Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 10.4, pg. 265, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3

We calculate its diameter “φγγ” to be the Planck Length “λh”, i.e., “φγγ = λh” to within approx. “15.3(%)”
• Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511

FOR MORE INFO...

http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html
 dgE
 Q: What is particle size?

This is an open question with potentially subjective answers

The concept of a particle possessing “point size” is meaningless
– i.e. “point size” cannot be challenged; it is not forensic

We know what it can’t be; i.e., it can’t be “0” or “∞”
– “0” is smaller than the Planck Length
– “∞” is larger than the visible Universe

Why?  Because absolute “0” or “∞” anything, have never & can never be experimentally measured;
e.g., attainment of absolute “0” temperature would require another Universe to act as an “energy sink”
for an experiment conducted in our Universe, failure of this constraint would invalidate thermodynamic
principles

Considering the above, how may we attempt to universally define particle size?

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 A: What is particle size?

We may universally define fundamental particle size by considering all matter (i.e. at rest), to exist in a
state of equilibrium with the gravitational field surrounding it

Hence, for a fundamental particle represented by a “point mass”, at rest in its “own” Universe (i.e.
devoid of all other matter & energy), its gravitational field cannot contain more energy than the rest mass
of the particle (i.e. by definition, no additional energy exists)

Thus, by equating the energy density of the gravitational field, to the mass-energy density of the particle,
an equilibrium radius (i.e. its size) may be computed; this definition of “size” has been experimentally
verified to coincide with the Root-Mean-Square & Mean-Square charge radii of the Proton & Neutron
respectively
• Phys. Essays 19, 592 (2006) (8 pages); DOI:10.4006/1.3028864
• Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545
Polarized ZPF

FOR MORE INFO... ZPF Equilibrium Radius

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 How may we equilibrate the “g” field?

Let “E = mc2” per unit volume “V(r)” equal the Spectral Energy Density “ρ0” of the Zero-Point-Field
(ZPF), integrating over the frequency domain (i.e. ω = Hz)
• Phys. Essays 19, 592 (2006) (8 pages); DOI:10.4006/1.3028864
Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch;
Gravity & the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis,
Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 14, No. 8, 479–498 (2005), Polarized ZPF
DOI 10.1002/andp.200510147

Describing the frequency distribution

utilising Fourier series yields the ZPF
m.c 2 .h .
2 equilibrium radius
3
ρ 0( ω ) d ω ω dω
V( r ) c
3
ZPF Equilibrium Radius

“m” = mass, “c” = speed of light in a vacuum, “h” = Planck’s Constant

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 What is gained by this approach?
A. A solution for the cubic frequency distribution proposed by Haisch & Rueda in their Quantum-
Vacuum-Inertia-Hypothesis (QVIH)
• 2005: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3
• 2005: Annalen der Physik, vol. 14, Issue 8, pp.479-498
– http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005gr.qc.....4061R
B. The continuous ZPF frequency distribution in the QVIH may be substituted with a discrete & fully
quantised frequency spectrum in terms of Fourier Harmonics, describing the Polarisable Vacuum
(PV) field articulated by “H. E. Puthoff ”
• 2001: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909037
• 2002: Found.Phys. 32 (2002) 927-943, DOI 10.1023/A:1016011413407
C. This substitution avoids the Cosmological problem of “infinite energy in flat space-time” because, for
a solitary neutrally charged, non-rotating “point mass” at rest, occupying an otherwise empty & flat
Universe, it ensures that:
1. The gravitational acceleration field cannot contain more energy than “E = mc2”
2. By determination of the spectral frequency limits, the energy per unit volume “J/m3” of the
Universe surrounding it is always finite
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 What are the spectral frequency limits?

The lower spectral limit of any point in a radial gravitational acceleration field is given by “ωPV(1,r,M)”;
the corresponding upper spectral limit is described by “ωΩ(r,M)”

“nΩ(r,M)” denotes the terminating field mode obeying the integer sequence “1, 3, 5 …. nΩ(r,M)”; thus,
the spectral characteristics of any point in a radial gravitational acceleration field are quantised against
the lower spectral limit, in accordance with the integer sequence (see equation below)
– Phys. Essays 19, 592 (2006) (8 pages); DOI:10.4006/1.3028864
– Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545

“KPV(r,M)” represents the Refractive Index in the PV representation of General Relativity (GR); its value
is usefully approximated to unity for all fundamental particles & weak gravitational fields
– 2001: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909037
– 2002: Found.Phys. 32 (2002) 927-943, DOI 10.1023/A:1016011413407

1 . 2 .c .G.M .
3
ω PV( 1 , r , M ) K PV( r , M ) ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
r πr.

“r” = ZPF equilibrium radius, “M” = rest mass, “c” = speed of light in a vacuum & “G” = Gravitational Constant

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 How is the Cosmological problem of
“infinite energy in flat space-time” avoided?

Let’s look at an example of what happens to the spectral limits of the gravitational acceleration field, in
terms of Quantum Mechanics (QM) & ZPF theory; in the case of a solitary neutrally charged, non-
rotating “point mass” at rest, occupying an otherwise empty & flat Universe, as the distance from the
“point mass” increases, the value of the Refractive Index approaches unity “KPV(r,M)  1” (i.e. by
definition, see “Puthoff et. al.”)

Thus, “ωPV(1,r,M)  0” as “r  ∞”, according to:
1 . 2 .c .G.M .
3
lim ω PV( 1 , r , M ) lim lim K PV simplifies to ω PV( 1 , ∞ , M ) 0 .( Hz)
∞
-
r ∞
- K + r π .r
r PV 1

Consequently, as “ωPV(1,r,M)  0”, “ωΩ(r,M)  0” according to: ω Ω ( ∞ , M ) n Ω ( ∞ , M ) .ω PV( 1 , ∞ , M ) 0 .( Hz)

Therefore, the Spectral Energy Density “ρ0(ω)” of flat space-time (i.e. when “r  ∞”) approaches zero,
& the Cosmological problem of “infinite energy” is avoided; hence, a vanishing volume at “r = ∞”
contains no energy!
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 What is the spectral limit of
curved space-time?

As mass-energy density increases, the terminating spectral mode “nΩ(r,M)” at a point in the gravitational
acceleration field decreases
– Phys. Essays 20, 101 (2007) (12 pages); DOI: 10.4006/1.3073796

Consequently, for a Schwarzschild-Black-Hole of radius “RBH” & mass “MBH”, the lower spectral limit
of the gravitational acceleration field at the Event Horizon, converges with the upper limit according to:
– “nΩ(RBH,MBH)  1” such that “ωPV(1,RBH,MBH)  ωΩ(RBH,MBH)”

For a Schwarzschild-Black-Hole approaching the Planck Scale, of radius “λx·λh” & mass “mx·mh”, the
terminating spectral mode at the Event Horizon is unity “nΩ(λx·λh,mx·mh) = 1”; for this specific case, the
singularity radius “rS” coincides with the Event Horizon & is conjectured to be the spectral state of the
Universe at the instant of the “Big-Bang” …. more about this in the coming slides
– Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 6.1-6.5, pg. 138-156, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3

Therefore, the spectral limit of curved space-time at the Event Horizon of a Schwarzschild-Black-Hole is
given in terms of the Planck Frequency “ωh” by:
λx λx
ωPV(1,λx·λh,mx·mh) = ωΩ(λx·λh,mx·mh) ≈ ¼·ωh λx
4 . 2
mx =
2.6987
1.3494
π 3 2 mx
6

FOR MORE INFO... “λh” = Planck Length, “mh” = Planck Mass

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 What does the generalised
spectral equation tell us about Photons?

The generalised spectral equation for any point in a gravitational acceleration field [i.e. “ωPV(nPV,r,M)”],
is simply “ωPV(1,r,M)” expressed in terms of the harmonic field mode “nPV” obeying the familiar integer
sequence, “nPV = 1, 3, 5 …. nΩ(r,M)” according to:
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
ω PV n PV, r , M . . K ( r, M )
PV
r π .r

This equation facilitates the derivation of the following:

– The Photon mass-energy threshold (2005 PDG value)
• Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 207 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.614634
– The Photon & Graviton mass-energies & radii (upper limits)
• Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511
– The Photon & Graviton mass-energies & radii (lower limits)
• Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 10.1-10.2, pg. 264, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3
– The Photon charge threshold (2008 PDG value ) & the Photon charge upper / lower limits
• Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 10.3-10.5, pg. 264-266, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 What can we derive if a Photon has mass?

The mass & size of all existing fundamental particles & the prediction of new ones by the formulation of
a single harmonic equation; i.e., we may describe all fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily
selected reference particle in harmonic terms
– Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545

The Hubble Constant & the effect of Dark Matter upon it

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature

The ZPF energy density threshold; i.e., the Cosmological influence of Dark Energy

The Cosmological evolution process

The “Accelerated Cosmological Expansion” phenomenon
– http://www.lulu.com/content/multimedia/18th-national-congress-(aip)/6346375
– The Natural Philosophy of The Cosmos (A), Proc. AIP, 18th National Congress (2008),
ISBN 1-876346-57-4

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
How may we utilise the upper spectral limit
to describe fundamental particles?

The upper spectral limit [i.e. “ωΩ(r,M)”] incorporates “size” & mass information, representing a unique
spectral signature; thus, by applying the known masses & derived radii of the Proton “rπ”, Neutron “rν”
& Electron “rε”, the following ratio’s may represented in matrix form:
1 1
ω Ω r π, m p 1.9997 ω Ω r π, m p 0.0288
ω Ω r ε, m e . = ω Ω r ε, m e . 2= ( %)
ω Ω r ν,mn
1 1.9941 ω Ω r ν,mn
1 0.593

– Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545

– Phys. Essays 22, 27 (2009) (6 pages); DOI: 10.4006/1.3062144

These harmonic ratio’s, i.e. to within “0.6(%)” of the integer value “2”, provoke the question as to how
much they might change if they were exactly equal to “2”; thereby representing a precise harmonic
relationship between the Proton, Neutron & Electron

Consequently, we have identified a harmonic hypothesis, let’s test it!

Note: the derived values of “rπ” & “rν” have been experimentally verified
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 Testing the harmonic hypothesis

If we assume an exact harmonic relationship exists between the Proton, Neutron & Electron, how does it
change the derived values of “rπ”, “rν” & “rε”?

The MathCad algorithm determining the impact to the derived values is shown below; “rππ”, “rνν” & “rεε”
denote the values of Proton, Neutron & Electron radii respectively, subject to the harmonic constraint

Notably, the deviation from initial values is “< 0.51(%)”
Given am = attometre = x10-18(m)
1
ω Ω r ππ, m p
ω Ω r εε , m e . 2
1
ω Ω r νν , m n

r εε r εε
11.8039
r εε r ππ r νν
r ππ Find r εε , r ππ, r νν r ππ = 830.6985 ( am) 1= .
0.0264 5.003910
4
0.5093 ( % )
rε rπ rν
r νν r νν 831.1563

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 Testing the harmonic hypothesis cont..

How does this harmonic constraint impact experimentally measured values? …. Since no precise
experimental measurement of Electron radius presently exists, our impact analysis is limited to the
Proton & Neutron; however, the ‘best’ available estimate is “< 1 x10-18(m)”, which compares favourably
with our derived value of “rε”
– http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29724

The Neutron radius is typically expressed as a “-fm2” quantity; therefore, we are required to convert our
representation to a comparable form, designated “KSS(rνν)”

The numerators represent the harmonically constrained derivation, whilst the denominators denote the
experimentally measured values; notably, the deviation from experimental measurement is “< 1.35(%)”,
& well within experimental tolerance
r ππ K SS r νν
.
1 = 4.342110
3
1.3463 ( % )
0.113. fm
2
0.69. fm
2

– Proton [0.69(fm2)]½: Selex Collaboration (2001), http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0106053v2

– Neutron [-0.113(fm2)]: Karmanov (2001), http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106349v1

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 Advancing the harmonic hypothesis

From the preceding slides, the next logical step is to express a generalised ratio of terminating spectral
frequencies “Stω”, of the form:
2 5
9 9
ω Ω r 1, M 1 M1 r2
. St ω
ω Ω r 2, M 2 M2 r1

– where (or vice-versa)

• “r1” & “M1” denote the radius & mass of the subject particle
• “r2” & “M2” denote the radius & mass of an arbitrarily selected reference particle

Therefore, utilising this representation, it is possible to form a table of fundamental particle harmonics

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 What harmonic patterns form?
Proton Electron Quark
Existing and Theoretical Particles
Harmonics Harmonics Harmonics
Proton (p), Neutron (n) Stω = 1 Stω = 1/2 Stω = 1/14
νe)
Electron (e), Electron Neutrino (ν 2 1 1/7 This formulation is not
L2, ν2 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) 4 2 2/7 unique, it is possible to
L3, ν3 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) 6 3 3/7 deduce alternative
harmonic sequences
Muon (µ µ), Muon Neutrino (ννµ) 8 4 4/7
L5, ν5 (Theoretical Lepton, Neutrino) 10 5 5/7 Consequently, this
Tau (ττ), Tau Neutrino (ν
ντ) 12 6 6/7 approach is deemed to be
Up Quark (uq), Down Quark (dq) 14 7 1 a methodology, not a
Strange Quark (sq) 28 14 2 theory
Charm Quark (cq) 42 21 3
Bottom Quark (bq) 56 28 4
QB5 (Th. Quark or Boson: Gluon?) 70 35 5
QB6 (Th. Quark or Boson: Gluon?) 84 42 6
W Boson 98 49 7
Z Boson 112 56 8
Higgs Boson (H) (Theoretical) 126 63 9
Top Quark (tq) 140 70 10
ω Ω r ε, m e ω Ω r ε, m e
2
FOR MORE INFO... ω Ω r π, m p ω Ω r ν ,mn

Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 Particle mass & size summary
Existing Particle EGM Radii PDG Applied PDG Mass-Energy
• EGM is the name given to our
(am) Mass-Energy Range or Threshold
Proton (p) rπ = 830.7026 Photon radiation method
Neutron (n) rν = 826.9443 Mass-Energy is precisely known
Electron (e-) See: National Institute of Standards & Technology • Black text: PDG data & EGM
rε = 11.8070
Muon (µ µ-) rµ = 8.2160 (NIST) predictions “< 2008”
Note: δm = 10 , am = attometre = x10-18(m)
-100
Tau (ττ-) rτ = 12.2407
• Red text: “2008” PDG data
νe)
Electron Neutrino (ν ren ≈ 0.0811 men(eV) ≈ 2 - δm men(eV) < 2
Muon Neutrino (ννµ) rµn ≈ 0.6552 mµn(MeV) ≈ 0.19 - δm mµn(MeV) < 0.19 • Blue text: “2008” EGM radii
ντ)
Tau Neutrino (ν rτn ≈ 1.9587 mτn(MeV) ≈ 18.2 - δm mτn(MeV) < 18.2
predictions of existing particles
Up Quark (uq) ruq ≈ 0.6805 muq(MeV) ≈ 2.59 1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3.3
Down Quark (dq) rdq ≈ 0.8811 mdq(MeV) ≈ 4.94 3.5 < mdq(MeV) < 6 • Green text: “2008” EGM radii &
Strange Quark (sq) rsq ≈ 0.8561 msq(MeV) ≈ 104 70 < msq(MeV) < 130
Charm Quark (cq) rcq ≈ 1.1226 mcq(GeV) ≈ 1.27 1.16 < mcq(GeV) < 1.34
mass-energy predictions of new
Bottom Quark (bq) rbq ≈ 1.0793 mbq(GeV) ≈ 4.20 4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.37 particles
Top Quark (tq) rtq ≈ 0.9140 mtq(GeV) ≈ 171.2 169.1 < mtq(GeV) < 173.3
W Boson rW ≈ 1.2837 mW(GeV) ≈ 80.398 80.373 < mW(GeV) < 80.423 • Magnitude of average change in
Z Boson rZ ≈ 1.0617 mZ(GeV) ≈ 91.1876 91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897 EGM radii from previous values
Higgs Boson (H): Th. rH ≈ 0.9404 mH(GeV) ≈ 114.4 + δm mH(GeV) > 114.4 due to “2008” PDG revision is
Existing Particles EGM Radii EGM Derived PDG Mass-Energy “3.5(%)” (blue text only)
Mass-Energy Threshold
Photon (γγ) rγγ = ½Kλλh mγγ ≈ 3.2 x10-45(eV) mγ < 1 x10-18(eV) • The EGM radii & mass-energy of
Graviton (γγg): Theoretical rgg = 2(2/5)rγγ mgg = 2mγγ No definitive commitment
the Gluon is set to “&/A”, due to
Gluon (gl): Theoretical N/A N/A mgl = 0(eV): Theoretical
9ew Particles EGM Radii EGM Derived PDG Mass-Energy its mass-energy being subject to
(Theoretical) (am) Mass-Energy Range or Threshold conjecture. However, it is possible
L2 (Lepton) mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV) to express the radii & mass-energy
L3 (Lepton) rL ≈ 10.7546 mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)
Not predicted or considered of the Gluon in a manner
L5 (Lepton) mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)
QB5 (Quark or Boson) rQB ≈ 0.9799 mQB(5) ≈ 9(GeV) consistent with EGM methodology
QB6 (Quark or Boson) mQB(6) ≈ 20.5(GeV) if assumptions are articulated

FOR MORE INFO... http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/

 dgE
 What errors are associated with our Photon
Radiation method w.r.t Particle-Physics?
Note: EGM is the name given to our Photon radiation method
Particle / Atom EGM Prediction SM Prediction or Exp. Meas. (%) Error • [1] 2001: Selex Collaboration
Proton (p) rπ = 830.7026 (am) rπ = 830.6624 (am) [1] < 0.005 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0106053v2
rπE = 848.6366 (am) rπE = 848 (am) [2] < 0.080
rπM = 850.059 (am) rπM = 857 (am) [2] < 0.817 • [2] 2004: Hammer & Meißner
rp = 874.6969 (am) rp = 876.8 (am) [3] < 0.240
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312081v3
Neutron (n) rν = 826.9443 (am) rX ≈ 825.6174 (am) < 0.161
KS = -0.1134 (fm2) KX = -0.113 (fm2) [4] < 0.322 • [3] 2009: NIST
rνM = 879.0649 (am) rνM = 879 (am) [2] < 0.008
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html
Top Quark (tq) mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4405 mtq(GeV) ≈ 171.2 [5] < 4.230
Hydrogen (H) λA = 657.3290 (nm) λB = 656.4696 (nm) Standard Calc. < 0.131 • [4] 2001: Karmanov
rπE = 837 (am) [6] < 1.372 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106349v1
As Above rπM = 852 (am) [6] < 0.229 • [5] 2008: PDG
rX ≈ 843.6856 (am) < 1.985
Note: am = attometre = 10-18(m) 2
KX = -0.118 (fm ) [6] < 4.100 http://pdglive.lbl.gov/
rνM = 862.5 (am) [6] < 1.885
• [6] 2008: Hammer & Meißner
Mag. of Average Error “< 1.12 (%)”
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0608337v1
The highlighted “2008” Hammer & Meißner results denote the average values of
two unique approaches (i.e. SuperConvergence & the Explicit “pQCD” Continuum)

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 What is “rν” physically?
Neutron Charge Distribution
rν r dr

ρ ch( r ) • “rν” denotes the ZPF (i.e.

space-time) equilibrium radius
Charge Density

ρ ch r 0
• “rν” coincides with the
ρ ch r dr Neutron Mean-Square charge
radius, conventionally
“+ve” Core represented as a “-fm2”
5.
r dr rν quantity
3
• “rν” marks the transition of
the positive core to the
r negative shell (i.e. when the
Radius
“-ve” Shell charge density is zero)
Charge Density
Maximum Charge Density • “rdr” marks the minimum
Minimum Charge Density charge density

FOR MORE INFO...

Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6664, 66640J (2007); DOI:10.1117/12.725545

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
Testing the harmonic hypothesis …. Again!

Arguably, the greatest test of any methodology, theory or physical concept, is whether or not it may be
applied & experimentally verified on a Cosmological scale

The harmonic hypothesis may be tested on the Cosmological scale by assuming that:
– “M1” = the initial total mass of the Universe “Mi”
– “M2” = the present total mass of the Universe “Mf” (i.e. equal to “Mi”)
– “r1” = the initial size of the Universe “ri” (i.e. at the instant of the “Big-Bang”)
– “r2” = the present Hubble size of the observable Universe “rf”

Let “Stω9” equal the ratio of the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter “TL” to the present
Hubble age of the observable Universe “AU”

Electric Charge (Qe) & Spin-Angular-Momentum (SAM) are not represented in the harmonic hypothesis
because the Universe does not possess a “net charge” or “spin”; thus, if we wish to develop a scaling
methodology applicable to all scales of reality, “charge” & “spin” cannot be included (i.e. the present
Cosmological values of zero “net charge” & “spin” cannot be reverse-engineered to non-zero initial
values) …. How can one scale a zero quantity?

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 Testing the harmonic hypothesis cont..

Respecting “conservation of mass-energy”, we immediately recognise that “Mi = Mf”

Hence, the harmonic hypothesis applied to Cosmology takes the form:
2 5 5
Mi rf rf TL
. St ω
9
Mf ri ri Au

– where, the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter is given by “TL = h/mγγ”;
• Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 6.7, pg. 163-167, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3
• “h” = Planck’s Constant
• “mγγ” = the mass-energy of a Photon
– Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5866, 214 (2005); DOI:10.1117/12.633511

By inspection, this equation appears plausible because it is a simple scaling relationship; i.e., the ratio of
the present Hubble size of the Universe, to its size at the instant of the ‘Big-Bang”, is proportional to the
ratio of the minimum gravitational lifetime of starving matter (assuming infinite time is a non-physical
parameter), to the present Hubble age of the Universe

Note: the above assumes that the Universe is flat (as experimentally confirmed by WMAP)

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 Testing the harmonic hypothesis cont..

Utilising the harmonic hypothesis, expressions for the Hubble Constant “H” & the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature “TU2” may be formulated
– http://www.lulu.com/content/multimedia/18th-national-congress-(aip)/6346375
– The Natural Philosophy of The Cosmos (A), Proc. AIP, 18th National Congress (2008),
ISBN 1-876346-57-4
– Quinta Essentia – Part 4, Ch. 7, pg. 175-193, ISBN: 978-1-84753-403-3

The harmonic hypothesis may be transformed according to (“KW” = Wien’s Constant):
2
2 .µ
2
λ x.ω h
5
rf TL Hα . 2 4 .µ ωh 2 .µ 1
→ T U2( H ) K W .St T .ln .H5 µ , St T . , Hα , λ x 4. , µ
ri Au H µ π λx µ 3
( 4 .µ ) .c π

– where,
• “StT”, “Hα”, “λx” (appeared in an earlier slide) & “µ” are forwardly derived constants
• “Hα” denotes the Hubble Constant at the instant of the “Big-Bang”
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
What Cosmological results did we achieve?

A Hubble age of “14.6 Billion years”

A Hubble Constant of “67.1(km/s/Mpc)”
– i.e. to within approx. “4.7(%)” of PDG [2008: hubblerpp.pdf] estimates & experimental
measurement by WMAP; “Hinshaw et. al.”, “2008-2009”,
• http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0732v2
• Astrophys.J.Suppl.180: 225-245, 2009

A CMBR temperature of “2.7248(K)”
– i.e. to within “0.01(%)” of the physical measurement by WMAP as reported by the PDG [2008:
microwaverpp.pdf]

A Galactic radius “Ro” of “8.1(kpc)” & total mass “MG” of “6.314 x1011(Solar masses)”
– i.e. to within approx. “1.34(%)” of the PDG “Ro” value [2008: astrorpp.pdf], & “6(%)” of the
average of two community estimates of “MG”
• 2008: ApJ, 683, 137-148, DOI 10.1086/589148, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1314v1
• 2006: Astrophysics, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp.3-18, DOI 10.1007/s10511-006-0002-6,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r774717g00111425

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
 31 Av. Cosmological Temp. vs. Hubble Cons.
3.5 .10
1
Hα
t1 Max. Cosmological Temp.: 3.2x1031(K)
31
3 .10

31
T U3 H β 2.5 .10

1
Av. Cosmological Temperature (K)

2
5 .µ
T U3 e
31
2 .10

2
10 .µ
2
2
1 T vs. H
5 .µ . 5 .µ 1
2
5 .µ
T U3 e
1
2 2 1.5 .10
31 T U3 H β K W .St T .ln . H .H
β α
15 .µ . 5 .µ 2 2
Hβ
2 2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ 3 2
T U3 e

31
1 .10

30
5 .10

43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
H β .H α
Big-Bang: 0(K), Hα ≈ 0.37ω
ωh Hubble Constant (Hz)

H = HβHα
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/ Graph 1
 dgE
 72 1st Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.
1 .10

t1 t2
71
8 .10

71
6 .10

71
4 .10

2 .10
71
dT/dt vs. t
1
dT dt H β .H α

dT dt t 1 0
(K/s)

dT dt t 2
71
dT dt t 3 2 .10

71
4 .10

2
6 .10
71 5 .ln H α .t .µ 1
dT dt ( t ) K W .St T .
2
5 .µ .
8 .10
71
t t

72
1 .10

72
1.2 .10
42 41 40 39
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
1
H β .H α
Max. Cosmological Temp.: 3.2x1031(K) Cosmological Age (s)

FOR MORE INFO... t = (HβHα)-1

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/ Graph 2
 dgE
 113 2nd Derivative of Av. Cosmological Temp.
5 .10

t2 t3

113
5 .10

d2T/dt2 vs. t
1
dT2 dt2 H β .H α
114
1 .10
dT2 dt2 t 1
(K/s^2)

dT2 dt2 t 2

dT2 dt2 t 3 114

1.5 .10

114
2 .10

2 2
5 .µ . ln H α .t . 5 .µ 1 2 1
K W .St T .
114
2.5 .10 dT2 dt2 ( t )
2
5 .µ . 2
t t
114
3 .10
42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 41 41 41 41 41 41
2 .10 3 .10 4 .10 5 .10 6 .10 7 .10 8 .10 9 .10 1 .10 1.1 .10 1.2 .10 1.3 .10 1.4 .10 1.5 .10
1
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

FOR MORE INFO... t = (HβHα)-1

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/ Graph 3
 dgE
 1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
84
2 .10
1 t4
t1
Hα
84
1 .10

η
dH dt H β
84
1 .10
1
2
5 .µ 1
dH dt e 84
2 .10
1
(Hz^2)

2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ 1
dH dt e 84
3 .10

2 2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
4

1
2

2 84
dH/dt vs. t
dH dt e 4 .10

Hγ = Ηβη
84
5 .10

H α .H γ
2
6 .10
84
dH dt H γ . 5 .ln 1 .µ 2 1
5 .µ
2 Hγ
84 Hγ
7 .10

43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
1
η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

ΗβηΗα)-1
t = (Η
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/ Graph 4
 1st Derivative of the Hubble Constant
84
2 .10
1 t4 Region of positive Hubble gradient
t1
Hα
84
1 .10

η
dH dt H β
84
1 .10
1
Region of negative Hubble gradient
2
5 .µ 1
dH dt e 84
2 .10
1
(Hz^2)

2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ 1
dH dt e 84
3 .10

2 2
2
5 .µ . 5 .µ

5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
2
2
4

1
2

2 84
dH/dt vs. t
dH dt e 4 .10

Hγ = Ηβη
84
5 .10

Cosmological Inflation Cosmological Expansion

84
6 .10

7 .10
84
Max. Cosmological Temp. Line: 3.2x1031(K)
43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
1
η
Big-Bang: 0(K), Hα ≈ 0.37ω
ωh H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

ΗβηΗα)-1
t = (Η
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/ Graph 4
 dgE
 2nd Derivative of the Hubble Constant

125
8 .10
t5

125
7 .10

6 .10
125
d2H/dt2 vs. t
η
dH2 dt2 H β

H α .H γ
125 3 2
5 .10
1
2 dH2 dt2 H γ . 5 .µ 2 . ln 1 . 5 .µ 2 1 2 1
5 .µ 1
dH2 dt2 e
4 .10
125
5 .µ
2 Hγ
1 Hγ
(Hz^3)

2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ 1 125
dH2 dt2 e 3 .10

2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ 4 2
125
2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ
2
1 2 2 .10
dH2 dt2 e

125
1 .10

Hγ = Ηβη 0

125
1 .10

42 41 40
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
1
η
H β .H α
Cosmological Age (s)

ΗβηΗα)-1
t = (Η

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/ Graph 5
 dgE
 Mag. of Hubble Cons. vs. Cosm. Age

1
2.5 .10
42
Hα
t1 Max. Cosmological Temp. Line: 3.2x1031(K)

Primordial Inflation √|dH/dt| vs. t

Thermal Inflation
42
2 .10
dH dt H β
η Hubble Inflation
1
Hubble Expansion
2 t4
5 .µ 1
dH dt e
42
1.5 .10
1
(Hz)

2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ 1
dH dt e

2 2
5 .µ . 5 .µ 4 2
42
2 2 2 1 .10
5 .µ . 5 .µ . 5 .µ 1 2
dH dt e

41
5 .10

0
43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30
1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10 1 .10
1
η
H β .H α
Big-Bang: 0(K) Cosmological Age (s)

ΗβηΗα)-1
t = (Η Note : the graph title is an abbreviated reference,
see the proceedings for more information

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/ Graph 6
 dgE
 What do the results demonstrate?

The magnitude of acceleration in a constant gravitational field may be decomposed into a spectrum of
frequencies obeying a Fourier distribution; this methodology unifies all matter, on all scales

All matter may be treated as Graviton radiators; hence, all starving matter (including Black-Holes) will
eventually “evaporate” as ejected Gravitons

A Graviton may be described as a conjugate Photon pair (i.e. coupled); hence, “evaporation as ejected
Gravitons” is actually “evaporation as ejected Photons”

The Hubble Constant & CMBR temperature are related

The influence of “Dark Matter / Energy” upon the Hubble Constant & CMBR temperature is “< 1(%)”

The constitution of the Universe is:
– “> 94.4(%)” Gravitons (i.e. conjugate Photon pairs)
– “< 1(%)” Dark Matter / Energy (i.e. inexplicable)
– “4.6(%)” Atoms

The average Cosmological value of ZPF energy density is “–2.52x10-13(Pa)” hence, commercial energy
extraction from the ZPF (i.e. the Casimir Force) is unlikely because the available ZPF energy is limited
to “–0.252(mJ/km3)”; notably, the volume of the Sun only contains the equivalent ZPF energy of approx.
“4(grams)” of matter! ….. The Sun has approx. “1.3 Million” times the volume of the Earth!
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
Standard Model
 Conclusions

Experimental evidence questioning the existence of “Dark Matter” has been published in “nature”
– http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/abs/nature07366.html
– http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36372
– http://www.jeromedrexler.org/

Thus, we propose that;
– All matter radiates Gravitons, these Gravitons may be modelled as conjugate Photon pairs; this
radiation is the energy source for the “energy sink” conventionally termed “the space-time
manifold”, resulting in “the curvature” described within the framework of GR
– All starving matter will eventually evaporate, returning the energy “borrowed” (i.e. condensed) soon
after the “Big-Bang”, back to the ZPF; the evaporation period is “> 4 x1022(yr)”
– “Dark Matter” may be explained in terms of Gravitons, & “Dark Energy” is simply the Casimir
Force acting on a Cosmological scale

Most Importantly

Matter is just a condensed form of Photons …. Hence, a Photon is a propagating “piece” of matter!
FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE
The End

I hope you’ve enjoyed the show ….

Feel free to talk with me after the presentation

or you can contact me by:
E-Mail: rstorti@deltagroupengineering.com
Phone (Oz): +61 410-493-087

FOR MORE INFO...

http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/
 dgE