MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2120204293 · doi:10.5539/apr.v5n5p67

The New Cosmology Rrising from the Quantum Pushing Gravity Interaction—The Case of Accelerating Universe

2013· article· en· W2120204293 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maurizio Michelini

Notice bibliographique

RevueApplied Physics Research · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhysicsMetric expansion of spaceGeneral relativityDark energyCosmological constantGravitationTheoretical physicsCosmologyRedshiftNon-standard cosmologyUniverseGalaxyEinsteinAge of the universeBig Bang (financial markets)Hubble's lawAstrophysicsAstronomyClassical mechanics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 2011 three astronomers were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics having focussed a correct method of measuring cosmic distances by observation of far Supernovae Ia. Assuming the 'lambda’CDM expanding model, they showed that part of the Universe was accelerating, contrary to the original General Relativity predictions. The acceleration was attributed to an Obscure energy linked to the cosmological constant L. This constasnt was formerly introduced by Einstein in the original G.R. equations to empirically counterbalance the gravitational force to the aim of describing the (known) static universe. After the Hubble’s discovery (1929) of galaxy redshifts, which launched the expanding universe, Einstein rejected L. This was the sign that he considered L a provisional parameter, not the expression of a new physical force. Nevertheless, this parameter is till today taken into account by cosmologists to fit their observations through the LCDM model. Something is not consequent in the history of the Gravitational theory. The “accelerated expansion” of the universe can be firmly established only through a model independent way. In fact the SNe distances calculated by LCDM expanding model resulted so large that part of the SNe exploded before the so called Big bang Age, in contrast with the bases of the expansion. The astronomers appear reluctant to claim this splashing result. Something in the Obscure energy is not convincing. Before knowing the astronomer’s work, I carried out a research about the physical inadequacy of General Relativity as proper theory of Gravitation, notwithstanding the great success in astronomical observations. The profound reason of this inconsistency is the absence of interaction-waves, contrarily to other fundamental Interactions considered in the Standard Model. From several decades the research attempted to improve this unsatisfactory situation trying to detect the so called gravitational waves coming from cosmic events, but no tangible results have been obtained yet. Actually, the gravitational-inertial waves surely exist, as well as the measured gravitational force. The wavelength I found is of the order of the Planck’s length, so adequate tools are necessary for detection. One year ago I published a comprehensive analysis which, recognising the inadequacy of the old kinematic basis of Special relativity, gave rise (Michelini, 2012) to a Relativistic Dynamics re-founded on the new dynamical basis of the Micro-quanta paradigm. The high flux fo of micro-quanta filling the space originates, through the mutual-shielding between two particles/masses, the Quantum Pushing gravitational force, whereas at very short distances (<10-15) the same flux fo generates the Strong and Weak nuclear forces. Contrarily to the old Newton’s ideas, all these drawing forces do not pull the particles, but push them each other, thus giving rise to the process of Unification of forces. The present paper deals in particular with the Quantum Pushing Gravitation operating on large distances (cosmology), so that between two very distant masses the effect of the mutual scattering on the interposed micro-quanta is not negligible, giving rise to an attenuation factor on the gravitational constant. Quantum Pushing gravitation defines a variable G(r) = G exp(–Sor) showing that parts of Universe at cosmological distances? do not feel sensibly the gravitational force. Then the Universe results static, i.e. not expanding. The observed high Hubble’s redshifts depend on the interaction of photons that travelled across the micro-quanta giving rise to the redshift z(x) = exp(x/Lo) –1. The SNe measuring method just discovered exponentially increasing redshifs. Trying to explain this fact, the redshfts were introduced in the LCDM expanding model that produced the large distances resembling an accelerating universe. Several SNe resulted to exist well before the Big bang. Considering this contrast, which inhibits the expanding models, we introduced the observed SNe redshifts in the Static model, finding that the last SNa (z = 1.91) explosion happened 15 Gys ago, a reasonable result. Attributing the Hubble’s redshift to the Doppler appears no longer necessary. The static universe, immersed within the micro-quanta, is obviously evolving because the synthesis of heavy nuclei always occurs within the star cores. No arbitrary constant L has to be introduced in the Static model since the erroneous concept of “gravitational” mass has been previously eliminated through the Quantum Pushing gravity. The main proof of the Static model is the quantitative recognition that the observed Cosmic Microwave Background is due to redshifted photons emitted–with the characteristic black body spectrum–from all stars of the universe.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,079
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,357
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueApplied Physics ResearchMême sujetCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesTravaux en français237 207