OUR OPEN UNIVERSE
UNIFYING GR & QFT

Russ Thompson
Russt51@aol.com
916-730-7879
&
Garrett Yates
Garrettyates11@hotmail.com

: http://www.icreateditfirst.com/dyn/SealInfo.jsp

Published on the BAUT. Forum
Unifying GR & QFT
Unifying GR & QFT
Unifying GR & QFT


All citations should indicate where this is published,
Just as they would for any work, peer reviewed or not!


Abstract

Ever since Friedmann worked out his equations for General Relativity (GR) and Hubble found the Redshift relationship for galaxies expanding away in all directions, the Big Bang Theory has attempted to show how our universe ‘could’ ‘possibly’ be working from a shrunken to a point condition, to expanding in all directions. Because the Big Bang Theory says that from that condition, all of space/time and all of the baryonic matter that constitutes our universe is all that can exist, they have been considering how GR can ‘possibly’ work in a closed system according to the Laws of Thermodynamics.
GR has been shown to work on many, many levels, but when it comes to applying any concepts to the universe as a whole, the ONE question that is the most fundamental is; are we working with an open or closed system?
This paper will simply show, using GR, how our universe ‘could’ ‘possibly’ be working, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics in an “OPEN” system.


NAKED SINGULARITIES

We are proposing that Naked Singularities do exist and that they make Galaxies NOT Universes.

So what we are really proposing is that a Naked Singularity should be able to be seen, and shown through GR, outside the event horizon (before it forms) of a Super Massive Black Hole (SMBH), if one were to do a look back (time reversal), and bring the singularity up out of the black hole, to find the Massive Black Hole’s progenitor.

We have been told that this is expressly forbidden according to the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics (mechanics).

Tensor wrote;
You also have another problem with the time reversal with all black hole singularities. According to the equations, once a horizon and singularity form, the equations can no longer be time reversed. To do so, they would have to violate the area increase theorem (Which is part of the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics).

The Laws of Physics do need to be followed to the letter and we commend all of mainstream for adhering to that so intently!
The Laws of Thermodynamics are very specific, and say exactly what kinds of processes can and cannot occur in closed and Open systems!

Since the Big Bang automatically makes the universe a closed system (space and time were spawned here, so it made everything that exists in our universe), you MUST adhere to those rules, and you have.

Here is a paper that ‘tries’ very hard to do that!
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html

When you have to work THIS HARD to try and show something to be true, this should be a huge clue that something is wrong!

So, here is why Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, John Preskill, Kip Thorne and all the others who have tried, have not been able to find Naked Singularities. They tried to find them in a Big Bang Universe, a closed system!

When a massive enough star ends its life in a Type II supernova, it creates a black hole, and GR has been used to model this event with a very high level of confidence, however in a Big Bang (BB) closed universe, the Laws of Black Hole Dynamics, expressly forbids the time reversal of this event, so currently, GR cannot even ‘see’ the progenitor (star), even though we know what it is. This is VERY strange! On the other hand, if you consider this, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then there is no Law of Black Hole Dynamics that forbids this, and it is perfectly legal to do a time reversal, and bring the singularity up out of the black hole, past its event horizon, and very easily and naturally ‘see’ its progenitor, the star. It is also important to mention here, that the progenitor material is spewed out (planetary nebula), while the black hole is separate, and defined by its event horizon, which begins accreting matter later.

So, what does this mean? If the universe is operating under the Laws Of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics does not apply, and when considering the creation of a SMBH, a Cosmic Black Hole, it is perfectly legal to do the time reversal I have shown to find the progenitor…the Naked Singularity (it’s not starting the universe) that makes a SMBH and ultimately its galaxy!
Which means that this is also showing, that according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, that Baryonic Matter can be/and is being created when the Naked Singularity is making the SMBH, it is spewing the Gamma Radiation, that once cooled enough, will become the Hydrogen and Helium. Trying to show this correlation (Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Hydrogen/Helium) has been part of the life work of four of our most renowned Astronomers, all listed above! They just never had any reason to try to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics of an Open system to a SMBH! In fact, in all the efforts to try to determine how SMBH’s are created, no one has thought to do this! If Fred Hoyle had just looked at what might be ‘right’ about GR, he could have got this!!! If anyone who was on the Big Bang side would have looked at how they could have applied GR to Fred’s Idea, they could have got this!!! But, not until 1997! See below.
Also, that SMBH will eventually start accreting Matter as the galaxy evolves through its life, and that Matter can then be ‘destroyed’ (stripped of all its baryonic qualities), and leave our universe, and be in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics of an Open system. So the area increase theorem wouldn’t apply either, because the Baryonic Matter entering the black hole will not cause the area to increase because the material can leave the system!
And for those who are insistent on the +’s and –‘s. If the Massive Black Holes are the –‘s, where are all the +’s?

And now for our Epiphany! Lest you doubt any of the above!
How do you find a Naked Singularity? Just like the concept of shrinking the universe to a point to find the Friedmann Naked Singularity, you shrink the Matter that comes from the Naked Singularity down to a point; so just do the ONE thing that no one has ever thought of…shrink a GALAXY (the Baryonic Matter, the stars and stuff) down to a point, at the core, and tell us what you find!!!

So, this is very simple and actually much more predictive than many might first think! For example, if Friedmann or Hubble, or anyone thinking of applying GR to any part of our universe, started thinking about the ‘Island Universes’, the galaxies, with the thought; those certainly look like they have been made individually (and oh, look, some of them actually collide), and then come to the very bright hypothesis, that if you shrink those down to a point, and use Einsteins General Relativity, the last 80 to 100 years would be a whole different ball game.
First of all, we would have figured out that there were SMBH’s, much earlier. We would have also easily figured out that the galaxies must get here individually and at different times because there are obviously some that are very fully developed and many others that look like they have different amounts of brightness and stars in them. That’s just for starters, because by now we would undoubtedly have come up with much better age constraints, all the way from the very youngest “Dark Matter Galaxies” to the BCD’s (Blue Compact Dwarfs), LSB’s (Low Surface Bright), the medium and older HSB’s (High Surface Bright), and the oldest Elliptical galaxies. We would know that space was expanding from the voids, but
it would probably still be a mystery of exactly how this was happening, what ‘space’ was made of and how it gets here.
But, in 1967, an amazing thing would have happened! We would finally be able to detect what we had been predicting all those years, Huge Bursts of Gamma Radiation, the Biggest Explosions In The Universe, and it most certainly would not have taken 30 + years just to figure out that they were cosmological in origin! But it did, so in 1997 we saw the first after glow of a (Long) Gamma Ray Burst (GRB), and it was shown that indeed, they were cosmological in origin.

GAMMA RADIATION BURSTS

Now, when they were finally found to be at huge distances, billions of light years, in fact, Gamma-ray burst (GRB) 050904 is the most distant X-ray source known, at z=6.295, comparable to the farthest AGNs and galaxies, there was a slight problem, well to be honest, a “HUGE” problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...tartrans.shtml
(notice Boydan’s plight here!)

We have great respect for Sir Martin Rees, and understand that for thirty years ‘everyone’ had thought that these GRB’s had to be star/bh related, and certainly had to be ‘in’ galaxies, however, it is our contention, that nearly everything that has been written on GRB’s since the “all the ENERGY must be beamed” Hypothesis (which there has been almost 0 contention to), has been constrained to fit the profiles of a “star in a galaxy” priori, they had already assumed.
Since it is already clearly understood that a Black hole is being created, it should also be obvious that a jet can form, BUT that does NOT mean that ‘all’ the energy must be beamed, or that a star is the progenitor! It is also well known that even the redshift distance of GRB’s is still very tenable, and line of sight issues still abound.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-
From the abstract;
[corresponding to an apparent luminosity >105 times larger than the brightest AGNs at these distances. More photons were acquired in a few minutes with Swift XRT than XMM-Newton and Chandra obtained in ~300 ks of pointed observations of z>5 AGNs.]

They are talking about Xray studies of the early IGM here, when they should definitely be ‘questioning’…how could a single star, at that distance, possibly do any of this!!!

This is even more compelling when taken seriously!
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406210
Directly from the paper;
[Although our analysis rules out all of the reported features, we do find some evidence, in four cases, for marginally significant spectral features at energies that do not suggest a clear interpretation. We cannot rule out the possibility that relatively weak line features are present in the X-ray spectra of some, if not all, GRB's. Given the diagnostic power of such detections, longer exposures of bright events are certainly warranted. Our work does, however, call into question the reality of all of the features detected to date, as well as the interpretation of these features as either iron, or specific low-Z elements.] Our Bold.

And finally, here is a paper saying that Helium is being created, just like in the early Primordial Big Bang. Like we say below though, this is from the perspective of a star exploding, so it is up to you how you want to interpret this.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0205093

So, what we are simply saying, is that the light from every Gamma Ray Burst (3 seconds to 500 seconds) Afterglow, is NOT from the IGM or ISM of any galaxy. It is its own light, with no element lines, accept for the ones that are in between it and us, and then the afterglow ‘appears’ to fade or absorb into that galaxy.
Also, a major obstacle is the absorption of gamma rays in the intergalactic space. GEV and TEV gamma rays interact with the infrared photons emitted by stars and dust and produce electrons and positrons pairs.
Also, there have only been two GRB’s (031203 and 980425) that have really been linked to supernovas, and they have both made the GRB’s look strange compared to all the rest, so again, it is our contention that they are line of sight issues.
Another situation we find very suspect is that the location of GRB’s in relation to galaxies has been changed at least 3 times, from the upper top quadrant of the discs in spirals (have seen that on the science channel twice), to the centers of galaxies, and now to very faint blue galaxies, so that if the afterglows fade into nothingness, that must mean that the galaxy was just to faint.
All it would take is for ONE to be robustly shown NOT to be in a galaxy, to show that GRB’s are Not Stars!

So what is really happening here? When Long GRB’s , which are 3 seconds to 500 seconds (short GRB’s are 2 seconds or less and are probably neutron star/stellar black hole related) (and we are saying that burst durations longer than 500 seconds, which there have been some 700, 900 seconds or longer, are AGN feeding incidents), So when 3 to 500 second bursts occur, they are making a galaxy and a black hole that is directly in relation to their burst times. .
The after glows from 10, 20, and 30, second duration GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to start nucleosynthesis (just like how the BB says it happened in the Early universe, only one galaxy at a time), and become the smallest dwarf galaxies. The after glows of 100(LMC)/120(smallest spiral) seconds GRB’s to ~350 seconds, will become the spiral galaxies with their SMBH’s. The after glows from 375 and 500 second GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to become the giant elliptical galaxies.

Now, to put this all in perspective we have to do some simple number
Calculations. When you go to the web site “An Atlas of the Universe”
http://Anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html Richard Powell states that there
are 350 billion galaxies and 3.5 trillion dwarf galaxies in the universe. We thought this was waaaay to many…until we did the math! Since GRB’s occur approximately once a day, that means the galaxies get here one day at a time (although it probably takes 100’s of thousands of years before the after glow cools off and make enough stars to see the galaxy). So, doing the math, 1 billion years is 365 billion days/galaxies and 10 billion years is 3.65 trillion days/dwarf galaxies and we are up to 11 billion years worth of galaxies getting here one day at a time. Actually the number of galaxies winds up being trivially important, but the 10/1 ratio of Galaxies to Dwarf Galaxies is the important thing.