Critical Review on Cosmologically Strengthening Hydrogen Atom

U. V. S. Seshavatharam, S. Lakshminarayana

  Open Access OPEN ACCESS  Peer Reviewed PEER-REVIEWED

Critical Review on Cosmologically Strengthening Hydrogen Atom

U. V. S. Seshavatharam1,, S. Lakshminarayana2

1Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India

2Deparment. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India

Abstract

In the earlier published paper, the authors proposed that observed cosmic redshift is due to cosmologically ‘strengthening’ hydrogen atom. In this paper the authors reviewed the same with respect to earlier proposed black hole cosmology and Stoney scale and current cosmic back ground temperatures. In this proposed model ‘gravitational potential energy of proton’ and ‘ (2n2) states of electron’ both seem to play a major role. Throughout the cosmic evolution, Planck’s constant seems to be a constant whereas the currently believed ‘reduced Planck’s constant’ seems to be a cosmological decreasing variable. With this new proposal - Hubble’s redshift interpretation, Super novae dimming and currently believed cosmic acceleration can be reviewed at fundamental level and a correct model of cosmology can be developed.

Cite this article:

  • Seshavatharam, U. V. S., and S. Lakshminarayana. "Critical Review on Cosmologically Strengthening Hydrogen Atom." Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology 1.1 (2015): 37-42.
  • Seshavatharam, U. V. S. , & Lakshminarayana, S. (2015). Critical Review on Cosmologically Strengthening Hydrogen Atom. Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology, 1(1), 37-42.
  • Seshavatharam, U. V. S., and S. Lakshminarayana. "Critical Review on Cosmologically Strengthening Hydrogen Atom." Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology 1, no. 1 (2015): 37-42.

Import into BibTeX Import into EndNote Import into RefMan Import into RefWorks

1. Introduction

The fundamental question to be answered is: During cosmic evolution, right from its birth, is hydrogen atom experiencing any structural or physical changes? This question directly and indirectly seems to be linked with the currently believed cosmic redshift observations [1, 2]. In this paper the authors reviewed their proposed new cosmic redshift interpretation [3] with reference to Black hole cosmology [4, 5]. In the early published paper [3], by considering the product of critical density and Hubble volume as the characteristic critical mass of the evolving universe-the authors proposed a model mechanism for understanding the observed cosmic red shift. In this review, the authors draw attention to two important points. 1) The critical mass of the evolving universe can also be viewed as the primordial mass of the evolving black hole universe as proposed in their recently published papers [4, 5] and references therein. 2) Proposed cosmological redshift [3] mechanism (assumed to be related with characteristic critical mass of the evolving universe) can also be viewed as best applicable in the evolving black hole cosmology.

With this new cosmic redshift interpretation, from the ground based laboratory hydrogen atom, current cosmic rate of expansion can be continuously monitored. This new proposal constitutes 3 parts. They are:

1) Gravitational potential energy of proton.

2)  possible quantum states of electron.

3) Ratio of Planck scale and current cosmic back ground temperatures.

Conceptually if this new interpretation is confirmed to be reasonable, Hubble’s law can be relinquished at fundamental level. If so, the advanced concepts of Hubble’s law like ‘cosmic acceleration’, ‘dark energy’ etc. may fall in a big quandary. The authors are sure that future science, engineering and technology will certainly resolve this sensitive issue.

2. Motivating Concepts and Points

The authors request the science community to kindly look into the following points in a true scientific spirit.

1) As suggested by S.W. Hawking [6], there is no scientific evidence to Friedmann’s second assumption [7].

2) If it is true that galaxy constitutes so many stars, each star constitutes several hydrogen atoms and light is coming from any excited electron of any galactic star’s any hydrogen atom, then considering redshift as an index of ‘whole galaxy’ receding may not be reasonable.

3) Merely by estimating ‘galaxy distance’ and without measuring any ‘galaxy’s actual receding speed’, one cannot verify the cosmic acceleration. Note that, in 1947 Hubble himself thought for a new mechanism for understanding the observed red shift [2]. In his words: “We may predict with confidence that the 200 inch will tell us whether the red shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding universe, or attributed to some new principle in nature. Whatever may be the answer, the result may be welcomed as another major contribution to the exploration of the universe”.

4) Even though it is very attractive, Einstein could not implement the Mach’s principle [8, 9] in Hubble-Friedmann-cosmology [10-13][10].

5) Until 1964, cosmologists could not believe in ‘cosmic back ground temperature’ [14].

6) In the past, ‘quantum gravity’ was in its beginning stage and now it is in an advanced theoretical phase.

7) Based on the Hubble’s law and Super novae dimming, currently it is believed that, universe is accelerating [12, 13]. In the authors’ opinion, if magnitude of past Hubble’s constant was higher than the current magnitude then magnitude of past will be smaller than the current Hubble length . So the rate of decrease of Hubble constant can be considered as a true index of rate of increase in Hubble length and thus with reference to Hubble length, the rate of decrease of Hubble constant can be considered as a true index of cosmic rate of expansion.

8) In future, certainly with reference to current Hubble's constant, gives the true cosmic rate of expansion. Same logic can be applied to cosmic back ground temperature also. Clearly speaking gives the true cosmic rate of expansion. To understand the ground reality, accuracy of current methods of estimating the magnitudes of must be improved.

3. Reasons for Considering the Universe as a Primordial Evolving Black Hole

Even though the subject of black hole physics is very interesting, its back ground mathematics is very complicated and theoretical predictions are beyond the scope of current engineering and technology. So far no single prediction of black hole physics has been evidenced. In 1974 S.W. Hawking suggested that, black holes can have temperature [15]. In 2014, he suggested that black hole event horizons can be assumed to be ‘apparent’ and needs further investigation at fundamental level [16]. At this juncture, if one starts doubting the ‘existence’ of black hole event horizons, then whole black hole physics will certainly fall in a ‘mathematical’ singularity. Until a highly sophisticated satellite reaches a black hole event horizon, strange theoretical concepts like black hole thermal radiation, mass-inflation, black hole’s gravitational radiation etc. cannot be addressed clearly and cannot be confirmed.

Now a days most of the cosmologists as well as astrophysicists strongly believe that each and every galaxy of the universe constitutes a fast spinning massive central black hole. Here the authors would like to stress the fact that, if primordial universe is able to produce so many galaxies with so many galactic central black holes that are having almost all closed curvatures, then cosmologists should not ignore the possibility of ‘considering the whole universe as a primordial spinning black hole’. In reality - one may reach or may not reach a black hole, if one is willing to consider the whole ‘observable universe’ as a huge ‘primordial evolving and light speed rotating black hole’, quantum gravity can certainly acquire a clear physical identity [17-19][17] and many interesting things will come into visualization as proposed in the authors published papers and references thein [4, 5].

4. Reinterpreting Cosmic Red Shift

During cosmic evolution, right from the beginning of formation of hydrogen atoms, as any baby hydrogen atom starts growing, cosmologically, bonding strength increases in between proton and electron causing increasing electron excitation energy to emit increased quantum of energy. With reference to the current strengthened or reinforced hydrogen atom, difference in ‘emitted quantum of energy’ may appear to be the observed cosmological redshift associated with galactic hydrogen atom. Observed Super novae dimming can be understood in this way [12]. Based on this new proposal, ‘galaxy receding’ concept suggested by Hubble can be reviewed and possibly can be relinquished. If cosmic time is running fast or if cosmic size/boundary is increasing fast or if cosmic temperature is decreasing fast then redshift seems to increase fast with reference to the current hydrogen atom. For a while guess that cosmological binding strength of proton and electron in the cosmologically evolving hydrogen atom is inversely proportional to the cosmic temperature, then with usual notation, observed cosmic red shift can be expressed as follows.

(1)

where, represents the current CMBR temperature, represents past cosmic temperature and is the wavelength of photon ‘emitted as well as received’ from the galactic hydrogen atom.

At any time in the past, at any galaxy, emitted photon energy can be expressed as follows.

(2)

Here, is the current redshift, is the energy of emitted photon from the galactic hydrogen atom and is the corresponding energy in the laboratory. is the ’s corresponding wave length in the laboratory.

From laboratory point of view, above concept can be understood in the following way. After some time in future,

(3)

Here, is the energy of photon emitted from laboratory hydrogen atom after some time in future. is the energy of current photon emitted from laboratory hydrogen atom. is the redshift of laboratory hydrogen atom after some time in future. From now onwards, as time passes, in future - can be considered as an index of the absolute rate of cosmic expansion. Within the scope of experimental accuracy of laboratory hydrogen atom’s redshift, it can be suggested that,

5. Stoney Scale Hubble Constant and Temperature

In the earlier published papers [4, 5] the authors suggested that,

1) Universe can be considered as an evolving primordial black hole.

2) Stoney scale [20] can be considered as the characteristic beginning scale of the baby primordial black hole universe.

3) Current back ground temperature can be considered as the current temperature of the current primordial black hole universe.

Stoney scale mass-energy scale can be expressed as follows [3, 4].

(4)

Stoney scale characteristic Hubble radius and Hubble constant can be expressed as follows.

(5)

Stoney scale characteristic thermal energy density and temperature can be expressed as follows.

(6)

At any time in the past,

(7)

At any time, matter density can be expressed as follows.

(8)

and can be compared with the matter density of elliptical and spiral galaxies.

6. Stoney Scale Model Mechanism for Understanding the Cosmic Red Shift in Hydrogen Atom

In a cosmological approach, starting from the Planck scale, in this section the authors proposed a simple and ad-hoc model mechanism for understanding the binding energy of electron and proton in the hydrogen atom. It is for further study and development. In hydrogen atom, in a cosmological approach, potential energy of electron be:

(9)

where is the cosmologically changing distance between proton and electron. From Bohr’s theory of Hydrogen atom, maximum number of electrons that can be accommodated in any principal quantum shell are This proposal can be reinterpreted as follows: In Hydrogen atom, in principal quantum shell, electron can exist in different states.

With reference to standard notation of gravitational potential energy, in nuclear physics, quantitatively and qualitatively it is possible to guess that [21],

(10)

where, is the rest mass of proton, is the ‘rms’ radius of proton [22, 23] and is the strong interaction dominating range [24]. Here can be considered as the gravitational potential energy of proton.

Note that, may be taken as the approximate ending range of strong interaction from the center of proton. Within the nucleus, at distances larger than 0.7 fm the force becomes attractive between spin-aligned nucleons, becoming maximal at a center-center distance of about 0.9 fm. Beyond this distance nuclear force drops essentially exponentially, until beyond about 2.0 fm separation, the force drops to negligibly small values. At short distances (less than 1.7 fm or so), the nuclear force is stronger than the between protons; it thus overcomes the repulsion of protons inside the nucleus.

In hydrogen atom, potential energy of possible quantum states can be:

(11)

where, and represents the past cosmic temperature. This expression is very simple and tightly connected with quantum nature, gravity and evolving cosmic back ground and needs further study.

Based on the Virial theorem [21], in a central force field, quantitatively potential energy is twice of kinetic energy or kinetic energy is half the potential energy. Following this idea,

(12)

Total energy of one electron in possible quantum states be:

(13)

Total energy of one electron out of possible quantum states can be :

(14)

Potential energy of one electron out of possible quantum states can be:

(15)

Orbiting radius of one electron out of possible quantum states can be:

(16)

Kinetic energy of one electron out of possible quantum states can be:

(17)

Orbiting velocity of one electron out of possible quantum states can be:

(18)

Angular momentum of one electron out of possible quantum states can be:

(19)

Here the key point to be noted is that,

(20)

With reference to current cosmic back ground temperature,

(21)

Here it should be noted that, throughout the cosmic evolution, Planck’s constant is a constant whereas the currently believed ‘reduced Planck’s constant’ is a cosmological decreasing variable.

Considering the jumping nature of electrons, now emitted quantum of energy for one electron can be expressed as follows.

(22)

In the current laboratory hydrogen atom,

(23)

Clearly speaking, total energy of one electron can be:

(24)

This idea is connected with quantum nature.

(25)

This idea is connected with final unification of gravity and atomic interactions.

(26)

This idea is connected with cosmic evolution and changing cosmic back ground.

7. Conclusion

In this brief report, in a cosmological approach the authors proposed a new interpretation for the observed galactic redshift. By considering this new cosmic redshift interpretation a novel model of cosmology can be developed. It can be suggested that,

1) In Hydrogen atom, in principal quantum shell, electron can exist in different states.

2) Gravitational potential energy of proton plays a crucial role in the past and current hydrogen atoms’ light emission mechanism.

3) Stoney scale and current cosmic back ground temperatures play a vital role in laboratory hydrogen atom’s light emission mechanism.

4) ‘Galaxy receding’ concept suggested by Hubble can be reviewed at fundamental level and possibly ‘Hubble’s law’ and its dependent ‘cosmic acceleration’ concepts can be relinquished.

5) Current observable universe can be considered as the primordial evolving black hole and its future rate of expansion can be understood from the ground based laboratory hydrogen atom.

Acknowledgements

The first author is indebted to professor K. V. Krishna Murthy, Chairman, Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas (I-SERVE), Hyderabad, India and Shri K. V. R. S. Murthy, former scientist IICT (CSIR) Govt. of India, Director, Research and Development, I-SERVE, for their valuable guidance and great support in developing this subject.

References

[1]  Hubble E. P, A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae, PNAS, 1929, vol. 15, 1929, pp. 168-173.
In article      
 
[2]  Hubble, E.P, The 200-inch telescope and some problems it may solve. PASP, 59, pp 153-167, (1947).
In article      CrossRef
 
[3]  U. V. S. Seshavatharam, and S. Lakshminarayana, Role of Mach’s Principle and Quantum Gravity in Understanding Cosmic Evolution and Cosmic Redshift. Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology, vol. 1, no. 1 (2015): 24-30.
In article      
 
[4]  U. V. S. Seshavatharam, and S. Lakshminarayana, On the Evolving Black Holes and Black Hole Cosmology-Scale Independent Quantum Gravity Approach. Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology, vol. 1, no. 1 (2014): 1-15.
In article      
 
[5]  U. V. S. Seshavatharam, and S. Lakshminarayana, Primordial Hot Evolving Black Holes and the Evolved Primordial Cold Black Hole Universe. Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology, vol. 1, no. 1 (2015): 16-23.
In article      
 
[6]  Hawking S.W. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group. 1988.
In article      PubMed
 
[7]  Friedman, A. Über die Möglichkeiteiner Welt mitconstanter negative Krümmung des Raumes. Zeit. Physik. 21: 326-332. (1924).
In article      CrossRef
 
[8]  Sciama, D. W. The Physical Foundations of General Relativity. New York: Doubleday & Co. 1969.
In article      
 
[9]  Raine, D. J. Mach's Principle in general relativity. Royal Astronomical Society. Vol 171, pages 507, 1975.
In article      
 
[10]  David N. Spergel et al. Planck Data Reconsidered. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3313.pdf
In article      
 
[11]  J. V. Narlikar. Introduction to cosmology. Cambridge Univ Press, 2002.
In article      PubMed
 
[12]  Perlmutter, S. et al. Measurements of the Cosmological Parameters Ω and Λ from the First Seven Supernovae at z ≥ 0.35. Astrophysical Journal 483 (2): 565, (1997).
In article      CrossRef
 
[13]  J. A. Frieman et al. Dark energy and the accelerating universe. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46, p 385. (2008).
In article      CrossRef
 
[14]  R.A. Alpher, H.A. Bethe, and G. Gamow. The origin of chemical elements. Phys. rev.73, 80, 1948.
In article      CrossRef
 
[15]  Hawking S.W. Commun. Math. Phys., v. 43, 199-220. (1975)
In article      CrossRef
 
[16]  Hawking SW. Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black holes. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf (2014)
In article      
 
[17]  Ashtekar, Abhay Physical Review Letters 57 (18): 2244-2247 (1986)
In article      PubMed
 
[18]  Carlo Rovelli. Class. Quant. Grav. 28: 114005 (2011)
In article      CrossRef
 
[19]  Hawking, Stephen W. Quantum cosmology. In Hawking, Stephen W.; Israel, Werner. 300 Years of Gravitation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 631-651. (1987)
In article      
 
[20]  G.J. Stoney, On the Physical Units of Nature. Phil. Mag. 11 (1881) 381-91.
In article      CrossRef
 
[21]  Celso L. Ladera et al. The Virial Theorem and its applications in the teaching of Modern Physics. Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. Vol. 4, No. 2, May 2010.
In article      
 
[22]  P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, and D.B. Newell http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2012-rev-phys-constants.pdf
In article      
 
[23]  Michael O. Distler et al. Phys. Lett.B. 696: 343-347, (2011).
In article      CrossRef
 
[24]  E.A. Nersesov, Fundamentals of atomic and nuclear physics, (1990), Mir Publishers, Moscow.
In article      PubMed
 
  • CiteULikeCiteULike
  • MendeleyMendeley
  • StumbleUponStumbleUpon
  • Add to DeliciousDelicious
  • FacebookFacebook
  • TwitterTwitter
  • LinkedInLinkedIn