By Prof. Lefteris Kaliambos (Λευτέρης Καλιαμπός) Τ.Ε. Institute of Larissa Greece. ( May 2014)

LefterisKaliambosbiography2 html 251b5f4b

NCSR "Demokritos" (2002)Confusing E=mc2

One of the important properties of mass end energy is that they are separated quantities which cannot be created or destroyed in accordance with the basic ideas of Greek philosophers which led to my discovery of the Photon-Matter Interaction . (See my NEW REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS and GREEK PHILOSOPHERS REJECT EINSTEIN in my FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS CONCEPTS ). Note that my formula of the Photon-Matter Interaction replaces Einstein’s confusing E = ΔΜc2  as

hf/m  = ΔΕ/ΔΜ  =  c2

 Unfortunately Einstein in his invalid relativity complicated more the problem by introducing  his additional  wrong assumption  that energy turns to mass. Under this crisis of physics which did much to retard the progress of nuclear physics Einstein  himself pointed out: “Pre-relativity physics contains two conservation laws of fundamental importance, namely, the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass; these two appear there as completely independent of each other. Through relativity theory they melt together into one principle.”

Of course Einstein’s  fallacious concepts of relativistic energy (Mc2) and rest energy Moc2) violate dramatically the well-established laws of nature according to which energy is due not to the mass but to the fundamental force of interaction. Under this confusion Einstein introduced the invalid Mass-energy equivalence. Unfortunately today physicists continue to believe that in OUR EARLY UNIVERSE the energy turned into mass and also in nuclear phenomena the mass defect turns into the energy of generated photons.  Also in the so-called annihilation physicists  believe  that the mass of  electron and positron turns to the energy of the two generated gamma rays. So in the “Annihilation-WIKIPEDIA” one reads the following wrong paragraph: 

“When an electron and a positron collide to annihilate and create gamma rays, energy is given off. Both particles have a rest energy of 0.511 mega electron volts (MeV). When the mass of the two particles is converted entirely into energy, this rest energy is what is given off. The energy is given off in the form of the aforementioned gamma rays. Each of the gamma rays has an energy of 0.511 MeV."

In  this false idea which did much to retard the progress of physics Einstein influenced  by his fallacious massless quanta of fields did not use the successful idea of the Bohr model according to which the energy E of the charge-charge interaction between the negative electron and the positive proton turns into the energy hf of the generated photon. So he avoided to write the very obvious energy E of the charge-charge interaction between the positive positron and the negative electron which turns into the energy 2hf of the two generated  photons. In fact, the energy E of the charge-charge interaction turns into the energy 2hf of the two gamma rays, while the mass 2M of the two particles turns into the mass 2m of the two photons as

E/2M = 2hf/2m = c2

 Unfortunately today cosmologists for explaining several observations including  the assumed observations of the rapid acceleration of the expanding universe believe that it is due to the fallacious antigravity of Einstein. ( Today they call it dark energy). Moreover using the fallacious concept of mass-energy equivalence  in the unknown total matter of universe ( visible and dark matter) they include the confusing dark energy because they believe that dark mass turns into dark energy.  So in the “Dark energy-WIPEDIA on reads the following false paragraph:    

Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, on a mass–energy equivalence basis the universe contains 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy (for a total of 95.1%) and 4.9% ordinary matter.”

In fact, the correct ordinary matter Mo is not 4.9% but much more greater, because cosmologist under the influence of Einstein’s massless quanta of fields believe incorrectly that photons are massless particles. For example the mass m = hf/c2 of  a photon generated after the so-called annihilation is equal to the constant inertial mass of an electron. So the mass of a large number N of such photons is N(hf/c2).  Also they do not estimate the considerable mass of energetic particles like neutrinos and electrons which move nearly at the speed of light having a variable mass  M, which is much more greater than the constant inertial mass. Under this condition for estimating the ordinary matter Mo of our universe we can write

Mo =  4.9% + N(hf/c2) + M 

In this equation the photons are characterized by the real energy hf which is the result of the charge-charge interactions of interacting charged particles. Also the mass of photons m =  hf/c2 is a real mass based on the conservation laws of energy and mass which are responsible  for the increase of the electron mass in both the photoelectric effect and in the Compton scattering.  

Since energy does not turn to mass for estimating the dark matter Md we may write

Md  = 100% - [ 4.9%  + N(hf/c2) +M ]

Of course in this equation we do not introduce any ordinary energy or dark energy because the energy cannot turn into mass.

On the other hand recent observations showed that at the time of the original studies in the 1990's that proposed the accelerated expansion of the universe, there were at least two unstated assumptions being made.

The first well-accepted assumption then and now was that space is expanding, and the second assumption was that the Hubble Formula calculates distances correctly based upon a constant expansion rate of the universe. The Hubble Distance Formula was derived from the invalid  relativity based upon an expanding universe.

"Major conclusions of the study were that the observable universe is probably not expanding also precluding its accelerated expansion (dark energy), and that the Hubble Distance Formula is wrong and needs to be replaced," say the authors Forrest W. Noble and Timothy M. Cooper .

(See A New Research Study Has Concluded that Dark Energy Probably Does Not Exist, 07 Mar 2014 ).

One fallacious explanation for the so-called dark energy is that it is a property of space. Einstein realized that empty space is not nothing. The first property that Einstein assumed is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. As a result, this form of invalid energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, Einstein avoided to use the well-established laws according to which energy is the result of fundamental forces acting at a distance. 

An alternative idea is a 2011 paper in the journal Physical Review D by Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. He argued that it is likely that the accelerated expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by the relative motion of us to the rest of the universe. The paper cites data showing that the 2.5 billion ly wide region of space we are inside of is moving very quickly relative to everything around it. If the theory is confirmed, then dark energy would not exist (but the "dark flow" still might).

 In fact,  in case in which we assume an accelerated expansion the real forces of such an acceleration  could be related not with the fallacious antigravity of Einstein (dark energy) but by using  Newton’s well-established laws.

 For example more researches on a proposed spinning universe should explain the so-called dark flow by applications of Newton’s inertial forces. It is of interest to note that the cosmic microwave background from the big bang had suspected also some anomalies  as evidence of rotation of our universe.

In 2011 Michael Longo of the Michigan Physics Department and his team used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to study the rotation direction of spiral galaxies. He published his research in Physics Letters B by suggesting that our universe has a spin. Especially his team analyzed the data from 15,000 galaxies which led to evidence that our universe has an axis of rotation. Such an analysis could also be circumstantial evidence that what we see is merely part of a much larger and more homogeneous universe that extends far beyond our visible event horizon of our localized “spinning” and expanding universe.

If our universe was born rotating the applications of Newton’s inertial forces are able to explain the dark flow and the accelerated expansion as an illusion of the relative motions depending of the amount of spin. For example our Earth has one rotation per 24 hours. However for one rotation per 1.41 hours an object at the equator should be weightless since the gravitation attraction Fg is equal to the centrifugal force Fc . That is Fc = Fg . However for the molecules in the atmosphere above the equator we have Fc > Fg  because in this region the radius R is greater than the radius r of the Earth. Note that for an object with mass m having an angular velocity ω we get

(Fc = mω2R)  > ( Fc = mω2r)   because  R > r.

Under this condition all molecules in the atmosphere above the equator will flow to the opposite direction of the gravitational field while the molecules of the ocean will have a weight because Fg > Fc  . This simple example is able to tel us about the real centrifugal forces for the explanation of the so called “dark flow” under the condition of a large spin of our universe. So the dark flow should be a centrifugal flow with centrifugal and Coriolis forces for a region where Fc > Fg. This also suggests that our universe was rotating from the very beginning and retained an overwhelming strong angular momentum. This could imply that the primeval Big Bang universe had rotation energy on a vast scale.