Although the gravitational energy within the distance of the radius of a singularity for a current estimated mass of the universe is equal to ~10^{69} Joules, congruent solutions for different ages of the universe reflect changes by a factor of π or 8π for identities. The total energy value is equal to the product of primary constants G·μ·ε·ħ·σ·c^{2} (which results in power, W) when divided by the area of smallest unit of space (area of a circle with a radius of Planck’s Length) and then multiplied by the universe’s current surface area and age. The conspicuous discrepancies of ~2∙10^{3} between the predicted average magnetic intensity within the universe from that total energy and contemporary measurements can be accommodated by the quantitative product of 21.3π^{4} derived from the classic four-dimensional metric. The equivalent electric field potential divided by the predicted magnetic intensity results in a velocity that has been suggested to reflect the latency for excess correlations to occur across the universe. The most parsimonious explanation for these results is that a large component of the magnetic manifestation of energy in the universe is recondite or occluded within its submatter spatial structure and that the required cohesion or “diffusivity” throughout the volume involves the electric field component. These quantifications may facilitate understanding of Mach’s principle that any part of the universe is influenced by all of its parts.

Periodical:

International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy (Volume 30)

Pages:

18-23

Citation:

M. A. Persinger "Discrepancies between Predicted and Observed Intergalactic Magnetic Field Strengths from the Universe’s Total Energy: Is it Contained within Submatter Spatial Geometry?", International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, Vol. 30, pp. 18-23, 2014

Online since:

March 2014

Authors:

Keywords:

Distribution:

Open Access

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References:

A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (2n ed) Princeton, Princeton U. Press, (1945).

Y. Hoffman, O. Lahav, G. Yepes, Y. Dover Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 10 (2007) 1-16.

M. A. Persinger, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2 (2012) 125-128.

J. Audretsch, Physical Review D 27 (1983) 2872-2884.

A. Neronov, I. Vovk, Science 328 (2010) 73-75.

M. A. Persinger, Journal of Physics, Astrophysics and Physical Cosmology 3 (2009) 1-3.

T. Borowski, International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy 11 (2013) 44-53.

S. Redfield, J. Linsky, Astrophysics Journal 583 (2008) 283-314.

A. H. Minter, S. R. Spangler, Astrophysics Journal 458 (1996) 194-214.

A. Opher, F. Alouani Bibi, G. Toth, J. D. Richardson, V. V. Izmodenov, T. I. Gombosi, Nature 462 (2009) 1036-1038.

I. Kazes, R. M Cutcher, Astronomy and Astrophysics 164 (1986) 328-336.

M. A. Persinger, S. A. Koren, The Open Astronomy Journal 6 (2013) 10-13.

M. Chandra Das, R. Misra, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2 (2012) 97-100.

L-C. Tu, J. L, G. T. Gilles, Reports on Progress in Physics 68 (2005) 77-130.

J. Singh, Great Ideas and Theories of Modern Cosmology, Dover, New York, 1961. ( Received 28 February 2014; accepted 05 March 2014 ).