# STERNGLASS COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Reads: 36 | Likes: 0 | Shelves: 0 | Comments: 0

#### Essay by: Mark Creek-water Dorazio

**STERNGLASS COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: the Big Bang Explained**

by Mark Creek-water Dorazio, 26 June 2018,

mark.creekwater@gmail.com

**SUMMARY (i.e., "abstract")**

In this essay we examine Ernest Sternglass's concept of "cosmological systems" [cosmo.systs] and use it to explain several outstanding mysteries in physics, such as the nature of so-called "dark matter," and the reasons why astronomers have for many years reported quantized patterns in the data which they have collected regarding red-shifts exhibited by some of the large objects on space. [See, for example: https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Redshift_quantization and/or https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c3a/ff643ec3d5ac89a3b19697da1c8eafa5e4b0.pdf].

Sternglass extends this data down to tiny objects like pi-mesons, by detailing "Masses sizes and rotational periods of cosmological systems predicted by the electron-positron pair model of matter” in his 1997 book, Before the Big Bang.

According to Sternglass’s model, a cosmo.syst is an object which is totally electronic in nature, like an electromagnetic field: though one can measure its mass/energy content by the effects which it produces on other objects, there is no "ponderable matter" (Einstein's words) inside it. In other words, though one can reckon both the size and mass/energy content of a cosmo.syst, there is nothing special at the center of it which one can characterize as a "particle."

Sternglass says that our universe started as a single very large cosmological system, which divided in half again and again, producing many many smaller and smaller systems. He says that after 10 generations of this divide-in-half process, there would be 1024 smaller systems, which would explain why a large galaxy (approx. a trillion stars) contains the mass of approx. 1000 small galaxies (approx. a billion stars each). Even smaller star-systems (known as "globular clusters") are known to exist, and contain an average of approx. a million stars each, exhibiting again a factor of approximately a thousand.

In his book, Sternglass details reasons why one would expect a cosmo.syst to divide in half for 10 generations and then form the next smaller system. It's related to how much space 1024 objects of the same size and weight can occupy, given that after 10 generations of dividing in half there would be 1024 smaller systems. Eventually they fill up the available space, and there is a small explosion, which propels 90% or so of the objects outwardly, to repeat the process as they, in turn, divide in half for 10 more generations before producing the next smaller system. Eventually this divide-in-half process produces objects which are tiny: pi-mesons for example. When zillions of tiny objects get down to approximately the size of pi-mesons, there is a "phase transition" [Sternglass's words] which releases a huge amount of binding energy, similar to how water releases binding energy when it forms ice. In this case, the energy released goes toward powering an explosion, which astronomers call a quasar. Sternglass calls them "delayed mini-Bangs" ----- and says that his model predicts that delayed mini-Bangs should be happening during all the time since the Big Bang (assuming that a Big Bang really happened), powered by the binding energy released by the phase transition, and that these delayed mini-bangs are similar in every way to the Big Bang, but simply involve less matter and energy.

The end products of this phase transition are neutrons, most of which quickly decay, producing protons and electrons. Thus Sternglass's model explains both the birth-process of protons and neutrons, and the source of the power for a Big Bang, assuming that there really was a Big Bang. As one can see from this brief description, the model has elements of both "big bang" theory and "steady state" theory in it: when a mini-Bang appears, it seems like matter is arising from nothing, which is an aspect of "steady state" theory. The standard model cannot explain the source of power of a quasar, so they blame it on a "black hole." According to the standard model, a large "black hole" is sucking in ordinary matter and spitting out some of it in the form of the most powerful gamma rays known, which astronomers identify as a quasar. In Sternglass's model, a quasar is more like a "white hole" than a "black hole": nothing gets sucked in, and large amounts of stuff come out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A STERNGLASS COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM ??**

Essentially it’s a rotating toroid-shaped vortex-like electron-positron pair in a highly excited state, which means that it can have a very large mass. As detailed below, in Part 4, Sternglass says that there is theoretically no limit to the amount of mass/energy which such a system can have. Plus, as mentioned above, a Sternglass cosmo.syst is purely electronic in nature, with no “ponderable matter” at the center of it.

**Part 1. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STERNGLASS COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM AND A "BLACK HOLE"**

The formula for the radius of a non-rotating black hole is given as:

R = 2.G.M / c.c (Eqn.1), where "R" is the radius, "G" is Newton's gravitational constant, "M" is the black hole's mass, and "c" is the speed of light.

Sternglass estimates the mass of our universe as 1.58E58 grams, including everything, such as "dark matter" and the mass-equivalent of the photons in our universe, which explains why his estimate is approx. 100 times greater than that given by other researchers. If one use this as the numeric value of "M" in Eqn.1, one calculates a radius of approx. 2.35E30 cm, equivalent to approx. 2.49 trillion light-years. Sternglass says that this is in fact the ultimate size of our expanding universe, which will not happen until billions of more years have passed, and that the present size of our universe is closer to 1/100 of that, or less. He says that nothing, not even light, will ever go beyond that limit (2.49 trillion light-years), so that our universe is in fact a very large “black hole”.

In his book [Ref.#1], and also in published papers, Sternglass talks about how he came up with a way to calculate the theoretical sizes of the cosmological systems in his model. He says that for large systems in space (galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.) the radius of the system is approx. proportional to the square root of the system's mass/energy content, and notes that this is also true for large weather systems on earth, such as hurricanes: the system's radius is generally proportional to the square root of its energy-content. This is not true for the radius of a so-called "black hole": inspection of Eqn.1 reveals that the system's radius is directly proportional to its mass, i.e., to its mass/energy content. Sternglass visualizes the cosmological systems [cosmo.systs] in his model as "black holes," and refers to them as such, but he is very clear that they are not "black holes" as most textbooks describe them. For one thing, their radius is generally greater than that of a textbook "black hole" of equal mass/energy content.

For a Sternglass "black hole" ---(i.e., a Sternglass cosmological system)--- one calculates the radius by visualizing that the system has its own gravity, and that a smaller system has stronger gravity inside it. He says that, each time when a system divides in half, producing two smaller systems, the numeric value of "G" increases by a factor of the square root of 2, equivalent to approx. 1.414. In this way he calculates the sizes of the various smaller cosmo.systs., such as those with the mass of a single star, and those with the mass of a single pi-meson. In both cases, using a scaled "local G" [Sternglass's words], the radius is proportional to the square root of the system's mass/energy content. One of the main elements of his model is that “For every [cosmological] system, the mass is proportional to the square of the radius” [p.225, Ref.#1], regardless of how massive or tiny it is.

One can re-write Eqn.1 to account for this scaled "G" by introducing the factor [Mu/Ms], where "Mu" is the mass of our universe and "Ms" is the mass of the system:

Rs = 2.G.{the sq.rt. of [Mu/Ms]}.Ms / c.c = 2.G.{the sq.rt.of [Mu.Ms]} / c.c (Eqn.2), where "Rs" is the radius of the system. Inspection of Eqn.2 reveals that the system's mass [Ms] is indeed proportional to the square of its radius [Rs].

**Part 2. STERNGLASS'S "TABLE 1"**

Below is a replica of Sternglass's "Table 1" [page 234, Ref.#1], where he lists mass and size data for many different kinds of cosmological systems, some as large as a super-complex of galaxies, and some as small as a pi-meson. For simplicity I have ignored the rotational periods of the systems, which also appear in the Table 1 in Sternglass's book. Plus, I have filled in some of the details which Sternglass neglected in the section where the sub-atomic sized objects appear. Interestingly, there is a sudden reduction of the radius by a factor of 137 when the mass is approximately that of five [5] protons, at the place which Sternglass calls "stage 27." There is a reason for this, which is too tedious and distracting to explain here. Just remember this if you bother to check any of the data: at stage 27, the radius suddenly shrinks by a factor of approx. 137, from approx. 5.4E-11 cm down to approx. 3.9E-13 cm. As an aside, which I would be happy to discuss further, by email, I'll say that this sudden shrinkage is related to the nature of the everywhere-present medium-of-space, often in the past referred to as "ether."

**===========================================================**

**Table 1: Mass and Size Data for Sternglass Cosmological Systems**

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**

**Stage / mass (grams) / radius (cm, light-years) /name/comment**

** 0/1.58E58/2.35E30, 2.49 trillion/entire
universe**

** 1/1.54E55/7.34E28, 78 billion/ super-complex of
galaxies**

** 2/1.51E52/2.24E27, 2.4 billion/galaxy
complex **

** 3/1.47E49/7.00E25, 74 million/galaxy
cluster**

** 4/1.44E46/2.14E24, 2.3 million/ large galaxy, such as our
Milky Way (approx. a trillion stars)**

** 5/1.40E43/6.68E22, 70 thousand / small galaxy (approx. a billion
stars)**

** 6/1.37E40/2.04E21, 2.2 thousand / "globular cluster" (approx. a million
stars)**

** 7/1.34E37/6.37E19,68
/ star-cluster (approx. a thousand stars)**

** 8/1.31E34/1.95E18,2.1
/average-sized star, such as our Sun**

**......**

**......**

**......**

**......**

** 27/8.33E-24/3.94E-13/
mid-way between the Upsilon-meson and the J/psi-meson**

** 27.5/2.515E-25/6.99E-14/
pi-meson**

**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**

**===========================================================**

Note that the pi-mesons in Sternglass's model, which (according to his model) form the basis of the structures of all the other kinds of matter, including protons and neutrons, are slightly heavier than the spin-zero neutral pi-meson, (which is known to have a mass of approx. 2.406E-25 gram). This is because the pi-mesons in the model have a total angular momentum of one, not zero, as Sternglass details in the book [Ref.#1]. See Appendix A, below.

Note also that the masses and radii given in the table are those of the entire system. For example, the mass given for our sun includes that of all the objects which orbit around it, as well as large amounts of gas and dust within the given radius. In the case of our sun, this radius is given in the table as approx. 2 light-years, which is why the nearest star to us is approx. 4 light-years away. In other words, our solar system occupies an "inner space" [Sternglass's words] whose radius is approx. 2 light-years, as does the star which is our nearest neighbor in space. In Sternglass's model, for every large object in space, as well as for tiny objects such as pi-mesons, each has an "inner-space" [his words] associated with it, whose size was determined before the big bang started, as he details in Ref.#1.

**Part 3. WHAT IS "DARK MATTER" ??**

As some readers might have already suspected from reading previous sections of this essay, the objects-in-space which Sternglass calls "cosmological systems" constitute the vast majority of the stuff which has come to be known as "dark matter." Large chunks of this kind of stuff sit lurking in space for millions or billions of years, unseen and unseeable, each produced millions or billions of years ago as a fragment of the initial cosmo.syst, which once contained all the mass/energy in our universe, before it started dividing in half, as explained above. The only activity which is happening inside such a system is the steady divide-in-half process which continues for millions or billions of years. Suddenly, when most of the objects participating in the process are of a particular (pun intended) tiny size, there is a phase transition (details above) which causes the whole thing to suddenly explode. When astronomers observe the explosion, they identify it as a "quasar" --- and give an incorrect explanation (details in "SUMMARY" above) for the source of the object's power.

Another way to visualize this divide-in-half process: it’s like an extremely slow-motion version of a fireworks display, where a large firecracker explodes into a thousand smaller firecrackers, each of which then explodes into a thousand smaller firecrackers, and so on, with varying delays (small or large fractions of seconds) between each of the thousands of explosions involved. Like pieces of the large firecracker, the cosmological systems (which are pieces of the initial very large cosmo.syst) do not all explode at the same time: on the contrary, each is on its own cosmic time-schedule, and each can suddenly explode unexpectedly. When astronomers observe radiation from a single explosion, they call it a quasar, and there might be months, or years, between observations of these explosions-which-are-called-quasars.

The standard model explains quasars as the result of a “supermassive black hole” sucking in ordinary matter nearby, which is supposed to cause gamma rays and other stuff to radiate outwardly from it as it tumbles into the “black hole.”

In Sternglass's model, a quasar is more like a "white hole" than a "black hole": NOTHING GETS SUCKED IN. On the contrary, large amounts of stuff come out, powered by binding energy which the phase transition releases, as described in the "SUMMARY" above.

To summarize further: a large chunk of "dark matter" suddenly explodes, producing a "quasar." This "quasar" is equivalent in every way to the Big Bang, but simply involves less energy and matter. As explained in the “SUMMARY” (above): during the explosion this "quasar" becomes a proton & neutron factory. Sternglass's model thus explains both the birth-process of protons and neutrons, and the source of power of the Big Bang, assuming that there really was a Big Bang.

A chunk of dark matter is an unexploded quasar, and exploding quasars are, no doubt, the source of some of the high-speed protons which strike Earth’s upper atmosphere, as implied by the findings of researchers at the Icecube neutrino telescope in Antarctica, who say that it’s likely that high-energy neutrinos and high-speed protons (cosmic rays) come from the same source, which they call a blazar [Ref.#3]. In this essay we argue that these “blazars” are in fact quasars, also called “gamma ray bursters,” as Sternglass observes, and behave exactly as his model predicts.

**Part 4. THE STRUCTURE AND ENERGY CONTENT OF A STERNGLASS COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM, BASED ON HOOKE'S LAW**

In Ref.#1, Sternglass explains his idea that a cosmological system is composed of a relativistic electron-positron pair, regardless of how large its mass/energy content is. He says that the electron and positron orbit (i.e., rotate) around each other, and that the edge of the electromagnetic field associated with the pair moves at almost the speed of light, which means that they are quite different from the non-relativistic electron and positron in positronium, which move at < 1/100 the speed of light. Sternglass says that, because there is "no upper limit to the energy contained in the relativistic electron-positron pair system that Feynman had made me work out on his blackboard fifteen years ago, I realized that a higher energy version of this microscopic structure could in principle form the seeds of stars, galaxies, and the entire universe, as difficult as this was to contemplate" [p.175, Ref.#1].

This rotation of an electron-positron pair produces a side-to-side movement by each of the two little rascals (electron & positron), a movement which is analogous to the up-and-down movement of an object hanging from a spring. Assuming the existence of an everywhere-present medium-of-space which is similar to what has in the past been called "ether," and assuming that the side-to-side movement of an orbiting electron and positron in an ep-pair is related to the elasticity of this "ether," one can use Hooke's law to calculate the elasticity constant of this stuff --- which Simhony has called "epola" [Ref.#4]. Those who want and/or need to review Hooke's law might want to do so at this time. In any case, Hooke's law gives the energy content of such an object as:

**E = (1/2).k.(ampl).(ampl) (Eqn.3)**, where "E" is the energy content of the object, "k" is the
elasticity constant of the assumed space-medium ("epola"), and "ampl" is the
maximum displacement of an orbiting electron or positron from the center-point of the orbit. Note that in an orbiting ep-pair, ampl = (1/2).radius, where the radius is defined as the distance between the center of
the electron and that of the positron.

To calculate the energy content of a cosmo.syst, one needs to calculate the energy content of each of the objects, (an electron and a positron), which compose it. Using Hooke's law one has: E(electron) = (1/2).k.(ampl).(ampl) and E(positron) = (1/2).k.(ampl).(ampl), so that the total energy content is given by:

E(total) = k.(ampl).(ampl) (Eqn.4).

Using the fact that the amplitude is equal to half of the radius of the system, one obtains:

Es = (1/4).k.Rs.Rs (Eqn.5), where "Es" is the total energy content of the system and "Rs" (the radius) is defined as the distance between the center of the electron and that of the positron. As expected, the energy content of a cosmo.syst is, like its mass, proportional to the square of the radius, as explained in part 1, above.

Combining Eqns. 2 and 5, one obtains: Es = k.G.G.Mu.Ms / c.c.c.c.

Assuming that the energy content of a cosmo.syst is equal to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light, one obtains: k = c^6 / G.G.Mu, where "c^6" means "c" to the sixth power. Using numeric values c^2 = 8.988E20 (cm.cm/sec.sec), G = 6.673E-8 cm.cm.cm/gram.sec.sec, and Mu = 1.581E58 grams, one obtains a theoretical numeric value for "k" --- the elasticity constant of the assumed space-medium, often called "ether": k = 1.032E19 grams/sec.sec.

To check this result for accuracy, one can use the mass and radius of any Sternglass cosmo.syst with Eqn.5. E.g., one can use the mass and radius of the initial cosmo.syst: Es = (1.58E58 grams).c.c = (1.42E79 ergs), and Rs = (2.35E30 cm), along with the above numeric value for k. Does 1.42E79 ergs = (1/4).(1.032E19 grams/sec.sec).(2.35E30 cm)^2 ?? Indeed, it does.

Suppose one looks at a tiny sub-atomic sized cosmo.syst ?? In this case one must remember that the radius shrinks by a factor of approximately 137 at "stage 27." Inspection of Eqn.5 reveals that the numeric value of the elasticity constant k must therefore increase by the square of this factor when one examines a tiny system. So k = 1.032E19 grams/sec.sec multiplied by (137.036)^2 = 1.936E23 grams/sec.sec for tiny sub-atomic sized cosmo.systs. To check this accuracy of this result, one can use the mass and radius of of a pi-meson, and ask oneself: Does (2.515E-25).c.c = (1/4).(1.936E23 grams/sec.sec).(0.7E-13 cm)^2 ?? Close enough. Please refer to Appendix A, below, for details re how the given numeric values for the mass and radius of the pi-meson are arrived at.

**CONCLUSION**

The existence of the "cosmological systems" in Sternglass's model is not presently a part of the standard physical models generally accepted by the physics community. By identifying this new concept, the model makes it possible, (using maths which are no more difficult than "high-school algebra"), to generate results which support the idea that there is, in fact, an everywhere-present elastic medium-of-space in our universe, which was often, in the past, referred to as "ether." Plus, we have shown that one can calculate a theoretical numeric value for the elasticity constant of this medium-of-space, which agrees with observed size and mass data associated with both large and tiny objects in our universe.

**APPENDIX A: MASS AND RADIUS OF THE PI-MESON**

The pi-mesons in Sternglass's model, as he explains in Ref.#1, are slightly heavier than the spin-zero neutral pi-meson, whose mass is known to be approx. 2.406E-25 gram. According to the model, this difference is due to the fact that the e and p in the spin-zero variety spin in the same direction, while those in the spin-one variety spin in the opposite direction. These spin-one neutral pi-mesons are theoretical objects in Sternglass's "electron-positron pair model of matter." According to the model, they are the main constituents of all the other known "particles" --- including protons and neutrons. Like "quarks" ---(which have never been observed in a physics lab [pp. 322-324, Ref.#2])--- the spin-one neutral pi-mesons are evidently very elusive, if in fact they even exist. One reckons that this is due to their very short lifetime if they are outside of a proton or neutron, and the near-impossibility of observing them if they are inside one. In Ref.#1, Sternglass gives their theoretical mass as approximately that of 276 electron rest-masses, equivalent to approx. 2.515E-25 gram.

To calculate the radius of one of these little rascals, one assumes that its orbital angular momentum, defined as (mass).(velocity).(radius), is equal to Planck's constant divided by 2.(pi), equivalent to 1.0546E-19 gram.(cm/sec).cm; one also assumes that the velocity is, not c, but two times c, because the orbiting electron and positron which compose the system are always moving in opposite directions to each other, at almost the speed of light. This means that their velocity with respect to each other is almost 2 times the speed of light. Using this idea, one obtains:

(radius) = [1.0546E-19 gram.(cm/sec).cm] / (2.515E-25 gram).(5.998E10 cm/sec) = 0.7E-13 cm, i.e., 0.7 fm, as Sternglass says.

Please note that this radius is a reflection of the pi-meson's actual size, not the size of its Compton wavelength, defined as the wavelength of a photon with equal mass/energy content. In the case of the pi-meson, this is approx. 8.8E-13 cm, i.e., approx. 8.8 fm. Even if one divide this by 2.(pi) to calculate the pi-meson's Compton radius, for comparison with the radius calculated above, it's approx. 1.4 fm, i.e., approx. twice as big as the radius calculated above. Perhaps this analysis helps to explain the prevalence of the factor-of-2 errors which seem to plague so many of our calculations ??

**REFERENCES**

(1) Sternglass, Ernest, book: Before the Big Bang (1997, 2001).

(2) Kragh, Helge, book: Quantum Generations (1999).

(3a) internet-site: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ghostly-particle-caught-polar-ice-ushers-new-way-look-universe

(3b) internet-site: https://www.sciencealert.com/high-energy-neutrino-cosmic-rays-pinpointed-to-source-blazar-txs-0506-056

(4) Simhony, Menahem, internet-sites: www.EPOLA.org, www.EPOLA.co.uk

########### << END OF ESSAY >> ###########

© Copyright 2018 **Mark Creek-water Dorazio**. All rights reserved.

## Booksie Popular Content

## Other Content by Mark Creek-water Dorazio

Essay / Non-Fiction

Essay / Non-Fiction

Essay / Non-Fiction

Existing Comments: