THE PHYSICS OF CREATION: LECTURE NO. Vc

Quasars and Supermassive Black Holes

INTRODUCTION
This lecture is prompted by three factors (1) my having delivered a Lecture at the Binnotec 2^nd Berlin Conference for Innovative Technologies on June 15th 2002, (2) my having read an article entitled 'Supermassive Black Holes' which has been published by the U.K. Institute of Physics in the June 2002 issue of Physics World and (3) my having received an E-Mail message dated June 29 2002 from a physicist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.

In my Berlin lecture I gave account of why certain experiments of published record claiming to tap energy from what we now regard as the quantum underworld of the space in which we are immersed have common features which confirm the theory I have used to explain the physical basis of gravitation and the creation of matter, including the creation of stars and, indeed, the principal component of matter, namely the proton.

In that Physics World article I was introduced to the notion that at the centre of some galaxies there are massive 'black holes', the most massive recorded to date being in the central galaxy in the Virgo cluster, M87, its mass being 3.5 billion solar masses. I could but wonder how any scientist could be so sure in making that kind of assertion. It is an assertion that is all the more perplexing, given that the article starts by a paragraph reading:

"Of all the legacies of Einstein's general theory of relativity, none is more fascinating than black holes. While we now almost take their existence for granted, for much of the 20th century black holes were viewed as mathematical curiosities with no counterparts in nature. Einstein himself never believed in black holes and wrote two papers in which he argued against their existence. Einstein's resistance to the idea is understandable. Like most physicists of his day, he found it hard to believe that nature could permit the formation of objects as extreme as black holes. Indeed, the gravitational fields of black holes are strong enough to prevent light from escaping, and even distort space and the flow of time around them."

That Physics World article by Laura Ferrarese and David Merritt went on to declare that the existence of black holes is now acknowledged and that they exist on a scale far larger than anyone has anticipated. Then Ferrarese and Merritt drew one's attention to another curious feature on the cosmological scene, the puzzle as to 'Where have all the quasars gone?'. Under this heading they note that:

"By studying the redshift of the light emitted by the quasars, astronomers found that the number density of quasars peaked when the universe was only about 2.5 billion years old and has been declining steadily ever since."

That is certainly an assertion that we surely must question, but, first, I will quote the text of the E-Mail message that I was pleased to receive from that Pasadena physicist. I have in the 'Welcome to my Physics Website' introduction stated that I invited feedback which can assist in clarifying and, where necessary, correcting my message in these LECTURES, and so it was even more heartening to receive that message which reads:

"I have spent a good deal of the evening reading your lectures, and, to be perfectly candid, my main feeling is anxiety that you may pass away without having ALL of your works preserved for posterity (since, in part, you state that one of your books, on gravitation, is out-of-print). I was therefore wondering if a complete collection of your works is available and at what cost.

I detect in your writing style a person who knows his subject, and, moreover, from my background in physics, I know that the issues you raise are, to say the least, profound (e.g., derivation of G and the fine structure constant from theory).

I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours truly, ...."

Now the message of this LECTURE is to remind readers that, before they try to draw too many conclusions about what is said about gravitational phenomena in far off space, they should ask themselves how they can be so sure that G, the constant of gravitation, is the same in the region of a so-called 'black hole' as it is within our solar system. Until one understands the true cause of gravitation, as supported by a theoretical derivation of the value of G in terms of other physical parameters, one just cannot feel confident about extrapolating one's findings here on Earth to situations where atomic forms of matter are deemed to be crushed out of existence by the force of gravity.

Given that I claim to have derived G by pure theory, as well as the proton-electron mass ratio and the value of the fine structure constant, I feel in a position to offer here some constructive suggestions concerning the way in which we interpret observations pertaining to quasars and 'black holes'.

That introduces the subject of this Lecture.

A SECOND INTRODUCTION
Before I proceed with the task I have just set myself, it is appropriate to mention something I discussed in a Letter to the Editor of Physics Education, a scientific periodical published by the U.K. Institute of Physics. It was entitled 'The First Law of Thermodynamics' and it appeared at pp. 202-203 of vol. 28 (1993).

I had reason refer to a book on cosmology (Novikov's Evolution of the Universe published by Cambridge University Press in 1983.) and noted that in that book the author had posed the question: "Is the vacuum gravitating?". My comment was: 'One does not see the equally important question: "Does the vacuum have a temperature?" and I followed this by saying:

"Yet, when we look into the space enveloping the Earth there is evidence of thermal equilibrium manifested by the 2.7 K radiation. For some reason this 'heat energy' is deemed to be a residue of the Big Bang scenario of the expanding universe."

I developed the argument in that Letter to the Editor by noting that Novikov had regarded the vacuum as permeated by virtual particles each having mass and, if that mass value was denoted m, one could formulate two equations that were equivalent to each other:
φm + kT = 0 φm + mv²/2 = 0
Here k is Boltzmann's constant, T is temperature and v is the speed of the thermal agitation of the virtual particle of mass m subjected to a gravitational potential φ which one assumes to arise from the sun and body Earth, for example, if we are looking at the vacuum in the near vicinity of Earth. I wrote kT rather than 3kT/2 because I had a reason, which I will not discuss here, for assigning only two degrees of freedom in this virtual vacuum particle situation.

My point, of course, is that a gravitating aether must have a temperature and it was of interest to estimate the mass of that virtual vacuum particle, given that T has the value 2.7 K, it being the cosmic background radiation temperature in the vicinity of body Earth and given that the value of φ could be deemed to be that in the Earth's upper atmosphere primarily attributable to the sun but augmented a little (about 7%) by the Earth itself.

Here one must remember that gravitational potential is a negative energy quantity, it being a measure of the kinetic energy shed as matter coalesces under the force of gravity. For the vacuum (the aether medium) to elude detection as material bodies move about in space one must accept that its energy state is unaffected by that motion of a body of matter. This can only be if the negative gravitational energy potential of a virtual particle is exactly compensated by the thermal (kinetic) energy retained by the agitation of the particle.

Hence I was able to deduce the value of m, given that one can calculate the gravitational energy potential effective from the sun and Earth, in our higher atmosphere where that cosmic background temperature has been measured. It was found to be approximately 0.04 times the mass of the electron.

I had, more than thirty years previously, published a theory in which I had derived a theoretical formula for the fine structure constant, a very important fundamental dimensionless physical constant linked to the universal quantum of action we denoted by the symbol h and name after Max Planck. This formula also introduced the mass m of the virtual particle of the vacuum medium and so I already knew the value of that mass from first principle analysis. Accordingly, in that 1993 Letter to the Editor of Physics Education I added the following footnote:

"It is beyond the scope of this commentary to show in detail how one can confirm this value m by an independent test, save to say that the vacuum has the ability to define the value of the fine structure constant in terms of the ratio of the mass m to the mass m_e of the electron: hc/2πe² = (108π)(4m/m_e)^1/2 A derivation of the above is presented Lett. Nuovo Cimento 40 53-57 (1984). See also the derivation as equation (19) on p. 354 of Quantutm Uncertainties (Nato ASI Series B vol. 162, Plenum Press, 1986.)"

As one can easily verify that formula does give that same 0.04 mass ratio and so I felt fairly confident about claiming that the vacuum itself does have a virtual particle composition with that mass property and so it must itself gravitate and it must have a background temperature that is a function of any matter present, particularly that concentrated in very large bodies within an appropriate range.

Now, I know that there will be some readers of this who are astute enough to doubt what I say above because there are so many stars in the universe that, collectively, this could render the magnitude of the gravitional potential infinite in value everywhere in space, even if the mass density of the vacuum itself is zero. That assumes that gravity has an infinite range of action - the conventional assumption. It is an assumption which means that any attempt by nature to create a new particle anywhere in the universe will be thwarted by the need for gravitational interaction to release an infinite amount of energy as part of that event. Therefore the assumption just has to be wrong. The alternative is to accept that space is divided into domains, perhaps one for every star that exists, owing to the range of gravitational action being confined within the domain boundaries. So we need only to consider the gravitational potential of a local star in contemplating that release of energy. Some, influenced by the Mach Principle, might prefer the longer range action of gravity and deem the energy release to be a finite quantity exactly equal to the rest mass energy of the created particle, but I believe the local evidence of a 2.7 K cosmic background temperature confirms my proposition that the range is limited so that we only need to consider a local gravitational potential that arises from the matter in our solar system.

This was why I included a passage I now quote from that same Physics Education Letter to the Editor, which reads:

"Now, much as we think we know all there is to know about gravitation, we really have no adequate reason for believing that gravitation can act over a range exceeding a few hundred light years. Indeed, if gravitation has a limited range of action, this could explain why stars form in separate space domains rather than converging into one central core to set up a reversal of the Big Bang scenario. The gravitational coupling across a galaxy can be one that is a chain coupling linking stars that are separated by less than the critical range of action."

One still might then wonder about the gravitational effect of the mutual interaction of the mass of the vacuum particles, ignoring any interaction with bodies of matter. Here one's intuition might suggest that, if gravitation arises from the distortion of the space medium by the presence of matter, then no matter present means no gravitational action with the vacuum medium when devoid of matter. That, however, is a style of reasoning which, though fairly common in theoretical physics, where, without deep understanding of causal factors, we accept 'laws' and 'principles' based on experience and no proof to the contrary.

Accordingly, though I have no simple answer to offer, I will suggest that the aether is in a state of equilibrium with itself. If it has an internal gravitational action tending to pull it all together then it must also have a form of internal pressure tending to pull it apart. Its components, whether charge confined by the surface boundary of a vacuum particle or charge in a continuum form that provides electrostatic neutrality overall, neverthess must be subject to internal electrostatic pressure. Maybe that pressure simply balances the gravitational action, as otherwise the vacuum lacks equilibrium. Now even this argument is unsatisfactory, because it recognizes primary action of the vacuum medium attributable to gravity and one cannot then see why this should not be be felt by any matter present.

I fall back, therefore, on the following argument. It is reasonable to assert that force action will not occur unless energy can deploy from one state to another. This is a chicken and egg argument where I say that the chicken (the energy) has to be able to move before it can lay the egg (the force). Much as we argue in dynamics that force times distance is energy, the truth is that energy that can vary as a function of distance is what imparts the action we call force. In this case we can have a chicken without an egg; we can have energy without a force. In the vacuum medium itself, given that energy density is held uniform through space by the equilibrium that prevails, there can be no gravitational force action asserted by the vacuum on itself or on matter present, the latter being able to move freely through the vacuum medium without suffering any energy problems.

This does not preclude the action of matter on the vacuum medium in the sense that affects a vacuum particle to cause energy to deploy from one form to another in that medium but provided it stays at the seat of that vacuum particle. This is the significance of those two equations quoted from the Physics Education reference. The energy of that background temperature 2.7 K of the vacuum reflects the energy deficit of the gravitational potential.

After these two rather lengthy Introductions we can now come to the primary subject of this Lecture, the topic of 'Quasars and Supermassive Black Holes'.

Please note before downloading that the five papers referenced next are in pdf format.

THE 2.5 BILLION YEAR QUESTION!
For a quick summary of my method of deriving G and the proton-electron mass ratio, I suggest the reader refers to two of my papers published in the scientific periodical Physics Essays, the full texts of both which are included on this website as:

The Theory of the Gravitation Constant
and
A Theory of Proton Creation
Concerning the derivation of G, you will find that, apart from first explaining how it really does have electrodynamic origins and so does arise from a Unified Field Theory, what is involved is the need to provide dynamic balance for the quantum jitter motion that gives basis for quantum theory. This dynamic balance is provided by a virtual particle form, leptons which, in performing this balancing act, one can refer to as 'gravitons'. We have, therefore, a quantum theory of gravity and, on an almost universal scale, certainly in free space generally and here within our solar system, those gravitons have to serve two roles. One is a primary role, a kind of action for dealing with the gravitational action of bulk matter, where the action is measured in terms of discrete units of mass. The other is a secondary or supplemental role catering for the gravitational action of matter and of energy, present, for example, as electron-positron quantum electrodynamic lepton forms, even as minute mass quantities smaller in value than those discrete units. This requires the shared action of two graviton forms, one identified as a virtual tau particle (taon), the super-heavy electron, as it were, given that the muon is the heavy electron. The other is a lepton form which is an energy quantum about 45% greater than the taon, its energy quantum being 2.587 GeV.

I may say here that, over the early years when I was developing this gravitational theory in the knowledge that the 2.587 GeV lepton must exist, I devoted considerable effort to fathoming the mysteries of elementary particle creation. I had not even contemplated bringing another lepton into the act. Indeed, the tau-particle had not even been discovered. But I knew that that 2.587 GeV energy quantum had to exist, it being the key to understanding gravity. It is a long story, as is evident from my papers in Hadronic Journal that are reproduced here on this website as:
Meson Production based on the Thomson Energy Correlation and An Empirical Approach to Meson Energy Production'
Particle physicists, at least in Japan, did, it seems, in those early years, catch a glimpse of the particle in their research efforts, referring to it as the H-quantum, which is why I refer to it in my paper:
Conservative Hadron Interactions exemplified by the creation of the Kaon
The point of all this, so far as my present message is concerned, is that gravitation arises from a dynamic balance attributable to a heavy lepton form in the field medium. Also, I am mindful of the fact that I still have to convince the physics community that there is merit in the suggestion that gravitation is a property dependent upon heavy-lepton balance, rather than upon the vague notion of Einstein that space is curved in the presence of matter.

That said, I now look to the problem of the quasar and its 2.5 billion year signature, as evidenced by redshift properties concentrated over a region for which the spectral frequencies are reduced by a factor averaging about one sixth. Now, of course, if one really cannot really believe the puzzling suggestion that quasars are a phenomenon of the past, an era going back some 2.5 billion years, then all one needs to do is to accept that what has been observed is simply that some stellar bodies in our universe (QSOs, quasar stellar objects), for some reason, happen to emit radiation over a spectrum having a lower frequency range.

It was in 1977 that I first read the following words from a book published by Oxford University Press, The Structure of the Universe' by J. Narlikar:

"What keeps a QSO shining? Because of its star-like appearance it might be thought that nuclear reactions are mainly responsible. This, however, is not the case, and it is believed that gravitation plays a dominant role in determining the behaviour of a QSO; but the exact nature of the mechanism is not yet known."

Earlier, in a 1966 book The New Age in Physics by Sir Harrie Massey (publisher: Elek Books), I had read about the quasar known as 3C273 which was said to have a very large redshift (z) of 0.158 as if moving away from us at a speed of about one-sixth of the speed of light. There was reference also to another quasar 3C48 which had a redshift of 0.367. The discussion then proceeded to explain why, relating this redshift to distance, and observation of the angular separation of radio sources on either side of the optical emitting region, one could estimate that the radio emission takes place out to a distance of 150,000 light years. One then reads:

"It follows that, whether the process responsible for the generation of the energy in a quasar arises from an explosion or an implosion (a sudden contraction) the radiation must have been emitted over a period greater than 150,000 years. This means a total energy output comparable with that of an intense radio-galactic source and a total mass in the core of at least one million times that of the sun."

So, some 36 years ago, cosmologists pondered on these ideas, and in Massey's words asked themselves the questions: "Are we to regard quasars as coherent masses of matter of this enormous magnitude?" and "How can such masses accumulate and whence comes the fantastically great amount of energy which they radiate?"

Well, I can but suggest that, in placing those quasars at such remote distances, they had been led astray. Massey ended that discourse with the words:

"The problems presented in understanding the behaviour of radio-galaxies and especially of quasars are most challenging. A great deal of observational effort both, radio and optical, is being devoted to extending our knowledge of these mysterious objects. At the same time the subject is one which cannot fail to stimulate theoretical astrophysicist to new cosmical concepts."

Dare I say here that we do not need new cosmological concepts, but rather an old concept, namely that of the aether as adapted to quantum theory, with its fine-stucture properties and its jitter motion and its dynamic out-of-balance that requires those leptonic gravitons mentioned above?

We know that gravitation can cause a redshift in the atomic spectrum. It is because gravitational potential acting in a region where energy is released by photon emission has priority in first extracting some of that energy to adjust that gravitational potential to cater for the loss of its gravitational action with the equivalent mass of the quantum of energy released. Keep in mind that gravitational potential is a negative quantity and so the loss of energy to feed electromagnetic radiation necessitates a commensurate but normally very small gain in the gravitational potential. The formula we use for this is such that the gravitational redshift at the surface of the sun involves a shift of wavelength that is very small, being 2.1 parts in one million. However, as we shall now see, we can contemplate something rather interesting, based on this author's theory of gravitation.

Suppose that, instead of the tau lepton serving as the primary graviton in the dynamic aether balance role, we have, for some reason, conditions in certain regions occupied by those quasars by which the more prevalent muon lepton assumes that role. Here it seems most unlikely that the equilibrium state which is established by the joint action of the tau lepton and 2.587 GeV lepton will be a factor. Instead, one can imagine that a simple single-lepton form provides the dynamic balance over a limited region of space centred on our quasar. Then, the muon being of larger physical form than the tau lepton, its electrodynamic effect in setting up the gravitational action will be very greatly enhanced.

This can be understood by reference to the author's above-mentioned paper on the theory of gravitation. As can then be seen, if a stellar core body involves muon leptons as gravitons, whereas its outer surface of radiating atoms lies in a normal region where the heavier lepton forms govern the gravitational action, the effective gravitational potential is enhanced by the fourth power of the inverse of the lepton mass ratio. Note then that the normal value of G for our situation here on Earth is governed by a factor of three times the fourth power of the inverse of the mass of the 2.587 GeV lepton. Therefore, for the pure muon graviton effect, in the situation mentioned, the effective value of G is increased by the factor (2587/105.6)⁴/3, 105.6 MeV being the mass-energy of the muon. This factor is 1.20x10⁵ and so a quasar having the mass and physical size of our sun, given this muon-based G value, should exhibit a very large redshift, without needing to be receding from us with an enormous speed or located out in space at an enormous distance.

Having regard to the fact that quasar redshifts are measured more by reference to radio frequency radiation than optical radiation and, guided by the fact that the source of our sun's radio radiation is in its chromosphere rather than its photosphere, the former having a larger radius, the sun's redshift, were it a quasar, would be somewhat less than the above factor suggests. I see, from a Lick Observatory photograph of the solar corona reproduced as plate 7.5 at p.208 of Massey's book, that the mean radius of the corona glow from the chromosphere is about 40% greater than the sun's radius, that of its photosphere. This would imply that, if a body having the sun's mass and form as typical were to be seated in a region of space where it acquired quasar gravitational properties, then its redshift (z) would be 2.1 divided by 1.4 and multiplied by 0.12, which is 0.18.

Now, if a redshift of 0.18 is the norm for a body typified by the sun's size and mass, given the muon graviton condition, this can but be seen as relevant to the observed norm for quasar redshift values. Indeed, it seems to offer a very satisfactory explanation as to why quasars 'seem' to have evolved and come into existence some 2.5 billion years ago. No longer can one really say, as I read on the first page of that June 2002 Physics World article by Ferrarese and Merritt, that:

"The reason for this evolution remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of modern physics.

In claiming here the possible solution to this great mystery I am merely pointing out that the astrophysical evidence that suggests the existence of bodies that have enormous masses, whether millions or billions of times the solar mass, might well be evidence of anomalies pertaining to the value of the constant of gravitation, G.

However, I have now given myself a new problem, in that I have now to face the puzzle of how it can be that a muon graviton can, under exceptional circumstances, replace the role of the taon graviton and its partner, the 2.587 GeV graviton, of the theory of gravitation that I have nurtured for so many years.

In thinking about this, even as I compile this LECTURE, I am influenced by the following words, also quoted from the first page of that Physics World article:

"Quasi-stellar objects or quasars belong to a class of galaxies known as active galactic nuclei. What makes these galaxies 'active' is the emission of staggering amounts of energy from their cores. Moreover, the luminosities of active galactic nuclei fluctuate on very short time scales - within days or even minutes. This fluctuation and the finite velocity of light set an upper limit on the size of the emitting region. For this reason we know that the nuclei of some active galaxies are no larger than a few light-minutes across, making them at least 1 billion times smaller than the galaxy in which they sit. Astonomers were faced with a daunting task to explain how a luminosity hundreds of times that of an entire galaxy could be emitted from a volume billions of times smaller. Of all the proposed explanations, only one survived close scrutiny: the release of gravitational energy by matter falling topwards a black hole. Even using an energy source as efficient as gravity, the black holes in active galactic nuclei would need to be enormous - millions or even billions of times more massive than the Sun - in order to produce the luminosities of quasars. To distinguish these objects from the stellar-mass black holes left behind by supernova explosions, the term 'supermassive black hole' was coined."

I leave it to the reader to rethink the above argument on the assumption that, owing to the muon graviton presence, G might be 120,000 times greater in such an active galactic nucleus than it is here in our solar system. This would mean that the galaxy in question is then closer to us and at a distance of one part in 120,000 of that otherwise assumed. This is owing to the redshift being a gravitational shift rather than a Hubble time shift, and so that daunting task is completely eliminated and the notion of the 'supermassive black hole' can be dismissed as an absurd suggestion.

Accordingly, one need not see the quasar as emitting 'staggering amounts of energy' as is suggested by the wise men of modern cosmology, but one must wonder why the quasar has a muon-graviton core system, whereas most stars, including our sun, have a different lepton-graviton environment.

Quite evidently the realm of the quasar is a region of space where conditions preclude the existence of normal states of matter and where, for whatever reason, one can expect a high energy activity and so high temperature conditions. So what is my 'new problem'? Well, this is why I added that Second Introduction above. It concerns the cosmic background and its temperature, the 2.7 K temperature evident from space probes in the vicinity of body Earth. In chapter 9 of my book Physics Unified I derived this temperature theoretically in terms of the thermal energy necessarily retained in reserve by each of the aether particles which form the basic fluid-crystal-like structure of that medium. I had shown that those particles had a small mass value which made them subject to gravitational action and so they must individually account for a measure of negative gravitational potential energy owing to the near presence of sun and Earth. I reasoned that the elusive nature of the aether precluded these two energy quantities, one negative and one positive, from betraying the existence of the aether, except in a subtle way. This meant that they had to compensate one another and so be of equal magnitude. From this, based on the use of Boltzmann's constant k, I could equate the gravitational potential energy of each such aether particle to the thermal energy kT and so deduce T, the temperature of the cosmic background in our Earth locality. The theory gave 2.6 K as that temperature and, 2.7 K being the value measured, I deemed this to be close enough carry a ring of truth and duly put my findings on the scientific record. See also that Physics Education item I discussed in that Second Introduction.

I could see that when matter was present as a tenuous gas or as stray molecules in space that temperature would incur some action in causing them to heat to that same temperature. This heat, being that of matter present, would then radiate energy into enveloping space where the aether would eventually merge it back into its general jitter motion, the motion which primes and also replenishes that cosmic background temperature state as necessary.

In retrospect, I see that one could ask how such a phenomenon might affect laboratory experiments in which we cool matter to temperatures below that 2.7 K norm. Maybe, if one investigated with this theme in mind, and did find that some kind of anomalous transition in rate of heat transfer at this particular temperature, then this would add proof to my proposition. I can only hope that research might one day clarify this issue.

Meanwhile, however, having mooted the possibilty that G could be increased by the factor 120,000 under certain circumstances where the muon graviton dominates the action, I now face the problem that, at distances from a quasar commensurate with the distance between sun and Earth, the cosmic background temperature could well be 120,000 times 2.7 K or over 300,000 K. Any matter there present would share that temperature and so radiate heat energy tapping, not energy sourced in the quasar itself, but aether energy drawn from its quantum jitter motion.

This may explain why the subject of my Berlin Lecture, as mentioned in my opening remarks above, is linked in my mind with the topic here under discussion. The aether itself can be a source of energy we should be able to harness, and, though that Berlin Lecture was concerned with a method that applies in our cosmic environment, I cannot resist making the point that, on the grand scale where cosmic forces are at work in a somewhat different cosmic environment, as evidenced by a change in the value of G, the aether has also other ways of shedding energy from its vast reserves before eventually reabsorbing that energy to sustain its quantum jitter.

So my message overall in this LECTURE is this: Do not be deceived by those who speculate about supermassive black holes which supposedly have masses measured in billions of solar masses. Those who speculate do not understand the physical basis of gravitation, as otherwise they would not dream of extrapolating the value G, as it applies within our cosmic locality, and extending it to a realm that one can only conjure in one's imagination. Maybe there are clusters of stellar bodies seated at the centres of galaxies that are collectively very massive, whether measured in hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousand solar masses, but surely not billions.

Furthermore, I repeat my assertion that cosmologists surely need to address the issue of how hydrogen atoms compressed into contact by the force of gravity, as in the sun, do not break up into electrons and protons. Once this begins to happen those free protons will see one another as attracted by mutual gravity action and become subject to a rate of acceleration that is 1836 times that of the corresponding interaction between two electrons. The net result is equilibrium as between gravitational attraction and electrostatic repulsion as the protons form a core of uniform positive charge density given by (G)^1/2 times the mass density of a system of hydrogen atoms which their K-level electron shells just overlapping. This density is 1.4 gm/cc, the mean mass density of the sun.

Why, I wonder, is this rather obvious issue just ignored by those who write on cosmological issues? Maybe the answer is linked to an overzealous theoretical venture into quantum physics. I read, on pp. 39-40 of Narlikar's book, an account which declares that for stars of less 1.4 solar masses, there comes a time when all the nuclear fuel is exhausted. This means that the radiation pressure cannot withstand the gravitational forces and so the star contracts to such an extent that its density can become 170,000 metric tons per cubic metre. The star is supposed to become such that the electrons in it are quantum-nmechanically 'degenerate', whatever that means.

Yet those protons are the ones bearing the gravitational pressure and they all have positive polarity! So surely they will bring into play a positive charge density which sets up a repulsive force that can arrest that compaction. Indeed, that electrostatic repulsion is so dominant that it will virtually preclude any compression beyond that 1.4 gm/cc value and in no way can one claim compression to levels at which can imagine the kind of physics that contemplates the creation of neutron stars or those mysterious 'black holes' that are said to be 'supermassive'.

Why, indeed, one may wonder, is gravity excluded from the quantum theory of degenerate matter and why is it that physicists can extrapolate a theme that applies to the confines of an atom and assume it applies generally to bulk matter? Here I have in mind the following statements in Narlikar's book:

"In a given system of electrons, the number of electrons occupying a given energy level is limited, because all such electrons must differ in other characteristics which specify the state, for example, the momentum and the spin. The permissible number increases with energy. In a highly compressed state of electrons (say with a density of 10⁹ kg m^-3) at low temperatures these energy levels tend to be all filled, and the matter is called degenerate. For such matter the pressure increases with density according to a fixed law. The pressure arises from the above-mentioned result that we cannot squeeze too many electrons of the same energy into a given region of space. The degenerate pressure therefore reflects the resistance provided by matter when an attempt is made to compress the matter beyond a permitted amount."

According to Narlikar this belief in the degenerate state of matter influences the ideas which cosmologists have about the evolution and decay of stars, but I have to say that I have trouble understanding how the physics of electron states pertaining to individual atoms has warranted such ideas as those just expressed. I believe that electrons do not obey man-made laws which say they have to avoid the same energy state in a so-called system other than that of a single atom. As I see it electrons in atoms have to avoid states of motion by which they act in concert with another electron to radiate energy. They could not retain their quantum status if they radiated energy. Note that a single electron moving in isolation does not shed energy as a function of its rate of acceleration. That, as I have explained in detail elsewhere The Exclusion Principle, is the causal factor accounting for its inertial mass property and, incidentally, the E=Mc² formulation. However, a collective system of electrons can avoid such energy loss by radiation if the electrons are so deployed in different states of accelerated motion that their fields interact orthogonally or oscillate at different frequencies. This does give the pattern of segregated electron states that we find in atoms. In no way, however, can this non-radiation theme be extended to require that numerous electrons in a kind of free electron gas take up different energy states as a matter of principle justified by an arbirary 'law'.

The question I have raised in writing this Lecture remains open. I still need to address the issue of what may be the factors which determine whether, in a given region of space, a muon-graviton system will replace the normal graviton system which includes the tau-lepton. I can only hazard a guess at this stage, a guess guided by the thought that quasars are said to belong to a class of galaxies known as active galactic nuclei. Maybe, in having very little translational motion through space, they lack something, a kind of electrodynamic property, that facilitates equilibrium and onset of order in forming a stable graviton environment and so the muon has to stand in and serve as the dynamic balancing agent that compensates for the quantum jitter. I have, in my writings, contemplated the creation and deployment of muons within the vacuum to serve a role of balancing aether momentum attributable to the vacuum particle system moving as an electromagnetic reference frame. The faster the motion, the more likely it is that a more-energetic lepton form will assume this role and so a muon presence such as might be deployed into service as a graviton goes hand in hand with a lower translational speed of a stellar object. However, that is mere speculation on my part and, in developing my theory, I have always sought to have significant corroborating factors before inflicting my ideas on others. Accordingly, I now close the Lecture.

Harold Aspden
July 4, 2002

The author's E-Mail address is: h.aspden@physics.org