1

Cosmic Quantization with Respect to the Conservation of

Upper-Limit Energy

Essam E Maroun
Collège De La Salle - Frères

Abstract The conditions of the early universe are not known with any
measure of certainty — they are only theories. Therefore, using the
assumption that the estimated total energy of the observable universe is
conserved, we propose a different lower limit for the gravitational energy; we
attempt to unify the subatomic and the large scale universe into one coherent
whole; thus, showing that the cosmos behaves like a quantum object. It uses a
form of Bohr’s quantization to strengthen the unification of quantum gravity.
Our model is simple, yet comprehensive.

Keywords Black Hole · Cosmology · Gravity · Quantization

1 Introduction

Our approach agrees with accepted cosmology on the upper limit

estimates, not only for estimated total energy of the observable universe
EU = M U c 2 , but also for present physical properties, such as the Hubble time
tU = RU / c ; the characteristic gravitational potential nU ≈ 10122 ; the critical
density; Planck force f P and Power PP ; and the upper bound of the
Bekenstein–Hawking entropy.

As has been noted, the universe can be quantized as a black hole

(Alfonso-Faus 2010). We suggest that the quantum of the gravitational
potential field energy (the energy of one cosmic bit) is the initial cosmic
potential energy, E ° = m° c 2 , although we get a different estimate for this
initial value than the ordinary one. Our calculations turn out to occur at an
infrared radiation (IR) frequency.

We point out that Planck length; time and temperature are identified
with the quantum of gravity. Thus, for example, time is bounded below by

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
2

Planck time and above by the characteristic time of the observable universe,
these bounds can be applied to each property of the gravitational quanta.

Planck time can be viewed as an endpoint for Planck epoch which is a

traditional (non-inflationary) era in Big Bang cosmology, this period of time
proposes a singularity that breaks down all the laws of physics. Planck time is
not only the starting point of the Big Bang and the cosmic inflation, but it is
also the starting point of the universe. For this reason, the energy identified
with the quantum of the gravitational potential occurs merely at Planck time.
Accordingly, 10 −62 kg can be viewed as an estimate that existed during Planck
epoch. Perhaps, this estimate is the starting mass of the singularity: “the
primitive atom”.

2 Cosmic Quantization

Consider the quantum of the gravitational angular momentum, where

m = E c 2 is the mass equivalent to the quantum of the gravitational potential
energy throughout the age of the universe; similarly, r = ct is the gravitational
radius throughout the age of the universe.

mcr = n (1)

Assuming the conservation of energy principle holds for the cosmos,

the estimated total energy of the observable universe is constant; we get, by
considering the centripetal force as being equal to the gravitational potential.

c2 M m (2)
m = G U2
r r

Combining the above, after simplifying,

n2 2
= GM U m 2 r (3)

Recall the bounds on m ,

nU2 2
≤m≤3
GM U l P GRU

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
3

The quantized mass is equal to the gravitational mass.

n c2r (4)
=
cr G

Converting to the Planck length l P = ct P , we get

r2 (5)
n=
l P2

The quantum of gravity n can be viewed as the information content of

the universe. You might expect this to vary as the cube of the gravitational
radius of the visible universe at time t , after all the material of the universe
appears to be fairly uniformly distributed throughout its volume. The above
equation, however, shows that it actually varies directly as the square of this
radius. This suggests one of two things: 1) either the black hole singularity
from which the universe emerged was rotating; or, 2) all matter in the
universe is actually distributed along the boundary of the outer “shell” of the
universe.

The first case might also explain why most galaxies seem to be
relatively flat spirals. The angular momentum of the original universe,
together with differences in speed of the ejecta caused by collisions would
cause a natural flattening into spirals with a bias in the direction of the
original rotation. Randomized collisions would tend to dampen out this bias
over time, but it would not eliminate it. This rotation would cause the ejecta
to flatten out into a more disc-shaped universe and result in the quantum
number becoming proportional to area rather than volume.

We cannot see the universe as rotating directly because there are no

outside points of reference. There is evidence, however, that this is the case
(Longo 2011) as there is an apparent 7% bias toward counter-clockwise
rotating galaxies in the northern hemisphere. This discrepancy is too large to
attribute to chance and shows that the universe is not, as has always been
assumed, isotropic.

A rotating universe would have to have a center for the rotation. The
problem is that the distances involved, and the slowness of rotation, might
make determining this center difficult. However, that does not mean it is
impossible.

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
4

The second possibility for this would be for all of the matter to be
located on the surface “edge” of the expanding sphere of the universe. But
this should mean we would see a “bright spot” in the direction from which we
came surrounded by a dark band having things too far away from us for light
to have traveled, or a dim band as things get farther away from us on the
edge. Either way, there would be a difference in the red shift as we view
things in different directions. This has not been observed, so this possibility is
not likely.

Substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. 3 and solving for m we get

r3 (6)
m=
l P2 GM U

Substituting GMU for c 2 RU , t for r c (at Planck time and the

characteristic time), and E for mc 2 , we get the quantum of the gravitational
energy.

t3 (7)
E=
t P2 tU

Observe that for t = t P , we obtain E° ≈ 10 −21 J , using Planck relation we

find IR. Additionally, this estimate is relatively close to the high frequency of
the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and it can be close to
one electron volt. This means that the gravitational energy is proportional to
the square root of the cube of time (and thus radius). This also supports the
idea of a rotating universe as it is a direct consequence of Eq. 5.

Heisenberg principle, ∆E∆t ≥ 2 , can relate the uncertainty of mass-

energy and space-time within the subatomic scale (a scale of ∆E ≤ E P and
∆t ≥ t P ). For example, ∆ E is Planck energy when ∆t is Planck time.
Remember, ∆ E cannot be ≤≤ E P and ∆t cannot be ≥≥ t P . For this reason,
10 −46 J is out of the cosmic limits because it corresponds ≈ 1011 sec which is
≥≥ t P . However, 10 −21 J can be a cosmic endpoint because it corresponds
≈ 10 −14 sec which is only ≥ t P . Moreover, it is worth mentioning that
∆m∆r ≥ 2c .

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
5

Density is proportional to the mass and inversely proportion to the

volume; hence,

1 1 (8)
ρ=
G tU t 3

Here the equation of mass density assumes that the universe is

spherical. However, if the black hole from which it emerged was rotating then
the true shape would be an oblate spheroid or a thickened disc. This means
that the apparent sphericalness might be due to reflection from the “edge” of
the universe or may be a relativistic effect from different speeds of expansion
in different directions. By “edge” we mean the limit of the observable
universe. Thus, things may not be where we think they are and there might be
multiple images of the same object.

It might be possible to test this reflection theory. The bias in counter-

clockwise turning spiral galaxies observed in the northern hemisphere might
be balanced by an equal bias in clockwise turning spiral galaxies observed in
the southern hemisphere. This check is on-going and the results have not yet
become available. However, if the results are analyzed over the entire sky
then just such a mirroring may be discoverable. This would also indicate that
the universe is closed and increase the likelihood of a Big Crunch at the end
of time. There is another problem.

Even if this is the case, it would not be conclusive if there is a

difference in ages between the “reflections.” The problem is that the angle of
the universe would only approximately equal the angle of the solar system, so
this bias may not be observable easily. Also, the reflection of any particular
galaxy may “roll off” the edge (the times at which the light from that galaxy
hit the edge would not all be the same) and change the apparent angle we see
that galaxy from. The object and its reflection would not necessarily be
viewed from the same point in time. This might introduce a second bias
which would make it almost impossible to verify the shape of the universe as
being an oblate spheroid or disc. Consider the amount of change our own
stellar system has undergone in the last four billion years.

Regarding Eq. 7 as being work done in the cosmic expansion, we get

for the quantum of the gravitational force,

t (9)
f = fP
tU

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
6

and the quantum of the gravitational power,

t (10)
P = PP
tU

Both of these are proportional to the square root of the gravitational

radius and are a direct result of Eq. 7.

Using Schwarzschild radius, the temperature of the gravitational quanta

can be given by Hawking relation,

1 (11)
T =
kt

Observe that for the characteristic time we obtain TU = 10 −29 K , this

estimate is very close to 2.73 K , an exceptional temperature of the CMBR.
Actually, this difference in estimate may be more of a calculation error rather
than a result derived from theory. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that for
Planck time we obtain Planck temperature. Note that the temperature is
inversely proportional to time.

From Clausius relation, S = E T , we apply the above result to Eq. 7.

This yields the quantum of gravitational entropy.

k t5 (12)
S=
t P2 tU

This is by far the fastest growth rate of any of the quanta considered
and is proportional to the square root of the fifth power.

Table 1 shows the values of various gravitational quanta at different

times throughout the age of the universe. For instance, the gravitational mass
varies from a photonic mass at Planck time, to a solar mass in about one
second, to a galactic mass in about four months and finally reaching the
cosmic mass in about 14 billion years. Using physical laws, we could extend
the results to other physical quanta.

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
7

The property Time ( sec. )

of the Proportion SI Units
gravitational to 10 −43
10 0
10 7
10 17

quanta Time
Radius r∝t 10 −35 10 8 1015 10 26 m.
Quantum of n ∝ t2 −
10 0 10 86 10100 10122
gravity
Energy E ∝ t 3/ 2 10 −21 10 44 10 54 10 70 J.
Mass m∝t 3/ 2
10 −38 10 27 10 37 10 53 kg .
Density ρ ∝ 1/ t 3 / 2 10 65 10 1 10 −10 10 −26 kg / m 3 .
Force f ∝ t 1/ 2 1013 10 35 10 39 10 44 N.
Power P ∝ t1/ 2 10 22 10 44 10 47 10 52 W.
Temperature T ∝ 1/ t 10 32 10 −11 °K .
10 −18 10 −29
Entropy S ∝t 10
5/ 2
10 −53
10 55
10 J / °K .
72 99

Table 1 Relative changes in gravitational quanta with respect to time

3 Cosmic Quantization of Space-Time and Mass-Energy

Space-time is quantized, remember r = l P n

t = tP n (13/a)

But why it appears that space-time is continues?

This can be simply explained by understanding ∆t

∆t = t P ( n − n − 1) (13/b)

Space-time appears continues because the universe is reaching tU

n → nU ∆t → 0

In addition, mass-energy is quantized. The equation E = 4

n 3 is a
t P tU
result from substituting Eq. 13/a in Eq. 7, or

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
8

(14/a)
m= 2
4
n3
c t P tU

But why it appears that mass-energy is continues?

This can be simply explained by understanding ∆m

(14/b)
∆m = 2
( 4 n 3 − 4 n 3 − 1)
c t P tU

Mass-energy appears continues because the universe is reaching mU

n → nU ∆m → 0

4 Conclusion

10 −62 kg (Alfonso-Faus 2010) is viewed as a value that existed during

Planck epoch; this estimate could be the starting mass of the singularity. Our
model predicts that the universe started at Planck time only, therefore, 10 −38 kg
is viewed as the mass identified with the quantum of the gravitational
potential. If our estimate is valid then our model unifies the essential physical
properties at both the subatomic and the large scale universe. Our approach
gives another way of estimating the total energy of the observable universe
under the assumption that this total energy is conserved. It describes the
cosmic inflation and the increase in entropy as an increase in the information
content given by its quantum of gravity. We need to point out that our rate of
inflation is different from that derived by Alan Guth (Guth 1981).

The energy identified with the quantum of the gravitational potential

E° ≈ 10 −21 J is energy of IR that existed in a universe of a singularity; it is the
highest amount of energy that is found before the Big Bang. The universe
only started to inflate at Planck time with an amount of IR energy, but with
energy less than this there was only a “primitive atom”.

In addition, this lower limit of cosmic energy is relatively close to the

energy that is on the high frequency of CMBR; this estimate can be close to
one electron volt as well. Actually, this difference in estimate mentioned
above may be more of where it is calculated rather than from an actual
difference in theory.

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
9

The formulas, in particular Eq. 5, support the idea that the universe is
disc-shaped and rotating, perhaps resembling a super-sized spiral galaxy. Our
conclusion, which is based upon this model, corresponds with the modern
cosmological observations.

References
Alfonso-Faus, A., Astrophys. Space Sci., 321, 69, (2009)
Alfonso-Faus, A., Astrophys. Space Sci., 325, 113, (2010)
Alfonso-Faus, A., Astrophys. Space Sci., online: 31 August
2012 (2011a)
Alfonso-Faus, A., arXiv:1105.3143 (2011b)
Barrow, J. and Sonoda, D.H., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.,
213, 917 (1985)
Phys. Rev. D, 7, 2333 (1972)
Collins, C.B. and Hawking, S.W., Mon. Not. R. Astron.
Soc., 162, 307 (1973)
Egan, C.A. and Lineweaver C.H., Astron. J., 710, 1825
(2010)
Fullana i Alfonso, M.J. and Alfonso-Faus, A., Astrophys.
Space Sci., 337, 19{20 (2012)
Gonza'alez-D__az, P.F., Nat. Sci., 3(5), 387 (2011)
Gudder, S.P., arXiv:1108.2296 (2011)
Guth, A.H., Phys. Rev. D, 23, 347{356 (1981)
Hagiwara, K. et. al., Phys. Rev. D, 66, 010001-1 (2002)
Hawking, S.W., Commun. Math. Phys., 43, 199 (1975)
He, X.G. and Ma, B.Q., Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 26, 2299 (2011)
Lloyd, S., Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 237901 (2002)
Phys. Rev. B, 699, 224-229 (2011)
Padmanabhan, T., Rep. Prog. Phys., 73, 046901 (2010b)
Padmanabhan, T., Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 25, 1129, (2010b)
Santos, E., Astrophys. Space Sci., 326, 7 (2010a)
Santos, E., Phys. Lett. A, 374, 709 (2010b)
Santos, E., Astrophys. Space Sci., 332, 42 (2011)
Verlinde, E.P., J. High Energy Phys., 1104, 029 (2011)

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]
10

5 The Electric Charge Hypothesis of the Subatomic Universe

From Planck relation, E = hν , we apply the above result to Eq. 7. This

yields the quantum of gravitational frequency of the early cosmic
Electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

1 t3 (15)
ν=
t P2 tU

Corresponding Coulomb’s potential energy to Eq. 7, we get the

quantum of gravitational electric charge of the early cosmic EMR.

qP t5 (16)
q= 4
tP tU

Matching Eq. 15 with Eq. 16,

q 6 = q P6 t P4 tUν 5 (17)

This is a relation between the electric charge of the early cosmic

subatomic particles and its frequency. Observe that the range of the electric
charge for the early cosmic EMR is 10 −42 C ≤ q ≤ 10 −24 C , this differs from the
conventional estimate q ≤ 10 −35 e . Also notice that for t = t P , we obtain
ν ≈ 1012 Hz and q ≈ 10 −33 C , on the other hand, ν ≈ 1031 Hz when q ≈ 10 −19 C .

Essam E Maroun
[email protected]