Friday, October 18, 2019

Shrinking Matter Theory (revised)






SHRINKING MATTER THEORY


1)    The shrinking matter theory
2)      Example changing to a reference frame in the past
3)      The CMBs and the Shrinking Matter Theory
4)      The Fine-Structure Constant and the Shrinking Matter Theory
5)      The redshift and the time (or distance) relationship
6)    The SN1a distance ladder and the shrinking matter theory
7)      Predictions in the shrinking matter theory
8)    Gravity
9)    Conclusion


1)    THE SHRINKING MATTER THEORY

This theory is not to disprove the big bang theory, but for those not yet brainwashed by the believers in such theory.
The first step of the Shrinking Matter Theory is a compact summary, but it contains all basic mathematic to assume the universe as the reference frame.
The shrinking matter theory and the expansion universe theory are equivalent. If we make our world as the reference frame, the universe should expand. If we make the universe as the reference frame, the matter should shrink. The laws of physics work to both theories.
The main difference of the expansion universe and the shrinking matter theory is what causes the longer wavelength observed of the deep space objects.
The Doppler shift (redshift) is well known in the expansion theory.
In the shrinking matter theory, the universe is the reference frame, so there is not expansion to cause redshift (except in the systemic local movements like rotation, orbits, binary systems, turbulence, ejection, gravitational effect and gravitational falling), so, the longer wavelengths observed are actually longer emission lines due the bigger size of the atoms in the past.
If we assume the speed of the light is constant along the time, the Planck constant “h” should grow by the factor of (1+Z)1/3 in the past. This means the Planck constant decreases along the time.
   hf  = h(o) (1+Z)1/3
To simplify, we could call (1+Z)1/3=Kh, so, h(f)=Kh x h(o).
Z : (observed redshift)                                  
h(f) : Planck constant in the observed frame.
h(o) : Planck constant of our local frame.
Constant dependence:
We must apply the constant Kh for all formulae and constants used in physics were the Planck constant “h” is used.
So that simplify the work, we can apply the constant Kh directly over the used values of our local frame, observing the right exponential use of the Planck constant as follow;
hf =Kh  ho                         “Planck constant”  
λ= λ0 (Kh)³                        “wavelength emission lines”
rf = (Khro                    “Bohr radius”
Ef  = E0 / (Kh)²                 “energy of the emission line”
σw(f)  = (Kh) σw(0)          “Wien Displacement Constant”
R∞(f) = R∞(0) / (Kh)³         “Rydberg constant”
T(f) = T(0) / (Kh)²             “Temperature of emission lines (Wien)”
(f) Observed frame in the past.
(0) our local frame at present






2) Example changing to a reference frame in the past

Suppose we search a galaxy and we detect the Lyα emission being three times greater than the Lyα in our world. The observed wavelength is exactly 3647,01 Â.
The H Lyα in our frame is 1215,67 Â.
So, the redshift Z is Lyα (f) / Lyα (o) -1 = 2
The constant Kh is (1+Z)1/3 = (1+2)1/3 =1,44224957
So, Kh=1,44224957

Now we can determine the main constants of the reference frame in the past;



cst/vle              formula*             local frame(o)           past frame(f)

h(f)               h(o) (Kh)        6,62607015E-34 Js [1]      9.5564468E-34 Js

Lyα(f)        Lyα(o)  (Kh)³              1215.67                   3647.01 Â

rf  “Bohr”       r0 (Kh)²                     0.529                      1.1007 Â

E(f)               E(o) / (Kh)²               10.204 eV                     4.906 eV

 σw(f)          σw(0) x (Kh)             0.0028978 mK             0,0041796 mK 
               
R∞ (f)         R∞(0) / (Kh)³             10 973 730.68 m-1      3 657910.22 m-1                       

T(f)             T(o) / (Kh)²                 23836  °K                         11459  °K

(f) observed frame in the past
(0) local frame at the present
 * simplified formula

If we consider H0 = 71 km/s/mpc and assume it is enough to determine the distance, we have:



 1 mpc =  3,261563777116330  Mly
 c = light speed = 299 792 458 m/s
Distance = 3380,3 mpc   = 11,02 Gly
Time (past) = 11,02 Gyr
H0 = Hubble constant



3) The CMBs and the Shrinking Matter Theory   



The lack of peak emissions pattern, avoids us to determine exactly what actually the CMBs are. This could let us to various scenarios.

3.1) One is assuming the CMBs could be the first thermal emission lines. In this scenario, if we consider the CMBs are Lyman alpha emissions, we have:  





 Temperature: ______________56.15 K

Wavelength: ______________1.063214 mm

Energy: __________________0.024039 eV

σw(f)  ____________________0.059703 mK

Z: _______________________8744.89


3.2) the other scenario is to assume that CMBs could be hyperfine transitions of neutral hydrogen, known as 21 cm line. In this case, the redshift is negative (blue shift), and the radiation could be the remaining of the collapsed universe, which provided the energy to the emergence of the universe we know. In this case we have:


 Temperature:_____________0.46721  K

Wavelength: ______________1.063214 mm

Energy: __________________2 (10)-4 eV 

σw(f)__________________4.967462 (10)-4  mK

Z (blue shift):_____________-0.99496253


The shrinking matter theory states that the Planck constant “h” varies along the time, so the energy of the photon also varies with the time. In this scenario, there is a systematic error in our researches assuming that the observed waves, emitted in the past and detected in our devices have the same energy as the waves produced in our local frame. We shouldn’t forget that the waves with the same frequency can be added and give the impression that they are more energetic. The amount of energy of each wave could be determined by the receptor, but it may not represent the real emitted energy of the wave.

The peak of CMBs are the most populous microwaves in the universe, as well the hydrogen is the most abundant element in nature, so, for now we should suppose (and state), CMBs are hyperfine transitions of neutral hydrogen, which provided the energy to the emergence of the universe we know. I know it is a hard exercise for minds which are indoctrinated in assuming the BB as a fact, but I hope you can. We know the CMBs are the most distant emissions detected, among the unresolved CXRBs, so, in this scenario, the wavelength of the CMB, compared with the be hyperfine transition of neutral hydrogen in our reference frame (21 cm), result negative redshift (blue shift). This could only be attributed to the remaining hyperfine transition of neutral hydrogen, in its collapsed last phase of the cyclic universe.
     
In this scenario, as issued later, the redshift is negative (blue shift), and can be calculated as follow:




  Z = -0.99496253

Kh = (1+Z)1/3  = ( 1 – 0.99496253)1/3  =>

Kh = 0.171 423 675

The Planck constant h(0) is 6.026 070 15 (10)-34  [1]  Js or J Hz
The Planck constant h(f) in this scenario would be:  h(f) = Kh x h(0) =>
h(f) = (0.171 423 675) ( 6.626 070 15) (10)-34  =>

h(f) = 1,135 865 298 (10)-34   Js                   

1,135865297636080E-34

When we replace the h(o) by the h(f) in the formulae, we have:

 rf  = 1,555 pm  (Bohr radius)

Lyα(f) = 6,123975 Â

E (Lyα(f)) =347,248 eV

E (n=1) = -463 eV

T (Lyα(f))= 811 150,06 K

 σw(f)  = 4,967462 x 10^-4 mK

In this transition, (Lyα(f)), the hyperfine transitions of neutral hydrogen can happen in the ground state and would be:

Temperature:_______________0.46721  K

Wavelength:_______________1.063214 mm

Energy:___________________2.00 (10)-4 eV

σw(f)  ____________________4.967462 x 10-4 mK

The unexpected and most important result in this scenario is that the Lyα(f) falls surprisingly in the lower end band of the unresolved CXRB (Cosmic X-Ray Background). So, the shrinking matter theory (in this scenario) could solve the origin of the CMB and the unresolved CXRB as being remnants of the past collapsed universe, and the future of this universe. Of course, this needs further resources, but it is a strong evidence of the consistence of this theory.







4) The Fine-Structure Constant and the Shrinking Matter Theory


The fine-structure constant “α” is a dimensionless value, but it reflects the relationship between the electromagnetic coupling constant ‘e” and ”Ԑₒ”, “h”, and “c”.

e = (2 α Ԑₒ h c)1/2   or   e² = 2 α Ԑₒ h c

As c is constant, result Ԑₒ is also constant, then α should vary with the inverse of the rate of h.

Rewriting the expression we have:

α = e² / (2 Ԑc h), and

α(o) = e² / (2 Ԑc h(o) ) =>

α(f) = e² / (2 Ԑc h(f) ) =>

α(f) = e² / (2 Ԑc h(o) (Kh))

Then α(f) = α(o) / Kh 

Or  α(f)  = α(o)   /  (1+Z)1/3

α(o)  =  0.007 297 352 5698(24)

(o) :our local frame
(f) : distant reference frame
Z : redshift
Kh: scaling factor of the Planck constant h as a function of Z
“However, if multiple coupling constants are allowed to vary simultaneously, not just α, then in fact almost all combinations of values support a form of stellar fusion."[3]

“Specifically, the values of α, G, and/or C can change by more than two orders of magnitude in any direction (and by larger factors in some directions) and still allow for stars to function."[6]






5) The redshift and the time (or distance) relationship

Since in the Shrinking Matter Theory there is not receding speed, there is no reason to determine the distance based in the standard model (expanding universe), which is necessary determine the apparent receding speed to infer the distance based in the Hubble constant.
In the Shrinking Matter Theory, the size of the atom decreases along the time, so the time should be defined by the rule of lost in volume per unit of time (LVL). The LVL can be mathematically defined as dVL/dt.. The LVL should vary along the time, according to the size of the atoms, and this variance could be proportional to the surface or to the volume of the atoms along the time.
This would let us to two hypotheses, A, and B.
The hypothesis A proposes the LVL variance could be proportional to the surface of the atoms.
The hypothesis B proposes the LVL variance could be proportional to the volume of the atoms.
Now we can develop the two hypotheses to analyze the possibility of choose the one which best fit to the observations. 

 
5.1)  Hypothesis A:

This hypothesis proposes the LVL (dVL/dt) varies proportionally to the surface Sf of the atom.
The LVL is defined as the vary of the volume “dVL” by the vary of time “dt” ie LVL = dVL/dt , so, we can write:
.
.
 The volume of the atom VL can be defined by the function:
.


.



.



.



.
 Sf = 4 π  rf 2  =>   Sf = 4 π  (ro (1+Z)2/3)2  =>
Sf = 4 π  ro2 (1+Z) 4/3   => 
Replacing (1+Z) by x, we have:

Sf = 4 π  ro2  x4/3  (III)

Applying  (II) and (III) in (I), we have
.

.
.
.
 Butro   x2/3  r, so, the time is directly proportional to the radius of the atoms. This case is similar to a spherical block of ice defrosting in an isothermal medium. The release of liquid water decreases along the time, because it is proportional to the surface of the block, but the decreasing in the diameter is constant per unit of time.
 But, (ro /Ks) is constant and we can replace it by KA, so,
 For Z = 0 => x=1   and   t = 0
So, for Z = 0 we have:
.

.



We usually use the time in Gyr (giga years) or Myr (mega years), for astronomical units, because it can be directly converted in distance Gly (giga light years) or Mly (mega light years).
So, we can say:

 x = (1+Z)
D = Distance  (Gly)
t = Time        (Gyr)
KA = Stretching factor of the function so that fitting it to the measured observations at low redshifts.

 5.1.2)   The redshift Z can now be expressed in function of the time t as follow:

 


.



.


.
( For hypothesis A )

t : (Gyr)

5.1.3)   Now we can determine the relationship of the evolution of the Planck constant “hf” in any time, for hypothesis A. 
 We know hf  = h0 (1+Z)1/3, so,

 

 5.1.4)  The constant  KA
The farthest bodies newly observed present redshift of about Z =10.4, so we should limit our researches in the range of Z from 0 to 10.4
The distance D in the standard model for Z= 10.4 is 13.562 Gly,[4] 
The Bohr radius in the shrinking model ro and  rf  are:
ro = 5.291773 x 10-11 m (for Z=0)
rf  = 2.368305 x 10-9 m (for Z=10.4)
ro  = Bohr radius of the hydrogen in the ground state at the present, in our local frame (o).
rf   = Bohr radius of the hydrogen in the ground state  in the past frame (f).

For the hypothesis A, the above equation (IV), is the basic to define all relationships in the Shrinking Matter Theory.
Now we can determine the best value for the constant KA, so that calibrating the equation to observed distances. This calibration must be done at low redshift, where we can determine distances by parallax. This mean the above function should give us the same value when the redshift is null (zero), and at low redshifts give us neglected differences when compared within the standard model. This mean the tangent of the above function (IV), at Z= 0, should be the same as the tangent in the function of the standard model (expanding universe).


In the standard model, (expanding universe), the equation to define the distance can be expressed as follow:

c = light speed = 299792458 m/s                                                                    
H0 = Hubble constant = 71 km/s/mpc


To take the result in Gly, the equation becomes:

 We can replace (1+Z) by x, then,
.
.
.
.

The function to determine the distance in the shrinking model is:


.

x = (1+Z)         

For Z = 0, => x = 1

To force the tangency of the two functions (IV) and (VI) at x = 1, implies (VII) = (VIII) at x=1, so, matching (VII) and (VI), we have:



.



.

KA = 20.657 582 147 862   (best value for KA, for hypothesis A, for Ho = 71)
c = light speed = 299792458 m/s
H0 = Hubble constant = 71 km/s/mpc



5.1.5) Shrinking speed SHV along the time in function of the redshift

The shrinking speed SHV of the Bohr radius can be defined as dr/dt.
The Bohr radius in the past is defined by the function: 

.
.


.


.
.



.
 SHV  =  8.117335  (10)-29  m/s   =  constant (for hypothesis A)

The Shrinking speed is constant along the time. 
This speed refers to Bohr radius.

                                                                                                                                                                                                             
5.1.6) Specific shrinking speed (SPV)

The specific shrinking speed is defined as  V/ rf .
Vf : Shrinking speed in a reference frame SHV (IX).
rf : Bohr radius  in a reference frame. rf  =  ro x 2/3
So,



.



.
 x=1+Z                                   

.

 For Z = 0  =>  x = 1  =>  SPV = 1.534 (10)-18   m/s /m        or    47,333 km/s /mpc

The equatorial radius of the Earth is 6 378 136.3 m.
The shrinking speed of the Earth would be:

SHV = (6378136,3) (1.534) (10)-18   =>

SHV = 9.7839 (10)-12  m/s

1 year  = 31 557 600 seconds, so,

SHV =  (31 557 600) (9.7839)(10)-12  m/year   =>
SHV = 3.0875 (10) -4   m / yr
SHV = 0.30875        mm / yr
SHV = 308.75             m / Myr

              




5.2) Hypothesis B:

This hypothesis proposes the LVL (dVL/dt) variance is proportional to the volume VLf  of the atom, so we can write:



.


.

The volume of the atom, “VL”, can be defined by the function:

.
.
.

We can call x = (1+Z), so,
.
.
.
.
     But, (2/Kv) is constant, so we can call:
.
.
.
 For Z = 0 => x=1   and   t = 0
So, for Z=0, we have:

 x = (1+Z)
 .
.


.


.
.
.
(For hypothesis B)    

 e = 2.718 281 828 459 05
t : (Gyr)
KB = see the below solution

5.2.1) Now we can determine the best value to the constant KB, so that calibrating the equation to observed distances. This calibration must be done at low redshift, where we can determine distances by parallax. This mean the above function should give us the same value when the redshift is null (zero), and at low redshifts give us neglected differences.
This mean the tangent of the above function,(XIII), at Z= 0, should be the same as the tangent in the respective function of the standard model (expansion universe).

In the standard model, (expanding universe), the equation to define the distance can be expressed as follow:
 x = (1+Z)
and:
 .
For Z = 0, => x = 1
To force the same tangency in the two functions (XIII) and (VI) at x = 1, implies (XII) = (VII), at x=1, so, matching (XII) and (VII), we have:


 .
 .
 .

   c = light speed = 299792458 m/s
   H0 = Hubble constant = 71 km/s/mpc

KB= 13.771 721 431 908  (best value for Kz in the function (XIII), hypothesis B, for Ho = 71)




5.2.2) The Shrinking speed SHV along the time in function of the redshift


The shrinking speed SHV of the Bohr radius can be defined as dr/dt.

The Bohr radius in the past is defined by the function:


.
x = (1+Z)          


.


.

 m/s (XIV)

x = (1+Z)
This speed refers to Bohr radius.
For Z=0, x=1 and SHV = 8.1173 (10)-29 m/s





5.2.3) Specific shrinking speed (SPV)

The specific shrinking speed SPV is defined as V/ rf .
Vf  : Shrinking speed in a reference frame SHV (XIV).
rf : Bohr radius  in a reference frame.

.

.
SPV = 1,534 (10)-18   m/s /m

.

 SPV  constant  = 1.534 (10)-18   m/s /m        or    47,333 km/s /mpc,   (for hypothesis B)



 5.2.4) The Shrinking acceleration (SHA) along the time in function of the redshift

The shrinking acceleration SHA is defined as the variation of the speed in function of the time, so, it can be defined mathematically as:
V = SHV  (XIV)      and      dt = (VII)

x = (1+Z)




.


.
.
.
  x = (1+Z)

This acceleration refers to Bohr radius.

For Z=0, x=1    and  SHA = 3.9295 (10)-30  m/s /Gyr

Or 3.9295 (10)-33 m/s /Myr

This acceleration refers to Bohr radius.
For Z=0, x=1    and  SHA = 1.24517 (10)-46  m/s2
     


5.2.5) Specific shrinking acceleration (SPA) along the time in function of the redshift


The specific acceleration SPA is defined as the shrinking acceleration SHA per unit of length.
This means as bigger the length of a body, as bigger the SHA.

The SPA can be defined as:      


.



.
For hypothesis B,  SPA = Constant = 7.4257 (10)-23   m/s /m /Myr


For hypothesis B,  SPA = Constant = 2.2913 (10)-3     km/s /mpc /Myr
                                            
5.3) The Graphic 01 presents the comparative evolution of the distance (Gly) or time (Gyr), for the ACDM_SN1A distance ladder “ACDM_SN1A_dist”, the shrinking Model hypothesis A “ shrM_A_dist”, the shrinking Model hypothesis B “shrM_Bdist”, and the Hubble law distance “Time stdM”, were:


5.3.1) For “ACDM _SN1A_ dist”:


  μ[2]:  Betoule et al 2014, Table F1, page 30,  “http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4064v2.pdf “.


1 pc = 3.261 563 777 116 330 (10)-9    Gly
                                            
5..3.2) For “shrM_A_dist”:


KA = 20.657 562 147 862

Z = Redshift 


5.3.3) For “shrM_B_dist”:
KB = 13.771 721 431 908

Z = Redshift

5.3.4) For “Hubble_law_dist”:

1 mpc = 3.26156377711633 Mly = 0.00326156377711633 Gly
Ho= Hubble constant = 71 km/s /mpc
Z = Redshift


5.3.5) Graphic  01





6) The SN1A distance ladder and the shrinking matter theory


The Shrinking Matter Theory is characterized by the possibility of vary the Planck constant along the time as the factor of the redshift of the emissions in the past.
This justifies the bigger size of the atoms and bodies in the past, as well the longer wavelength emissions and smaller energy and temperature.
The main relationship relative to the proprieties of the matter and the redshift is listed below.



.


.


.

.

.


.

 .



 The SN1a distance ladder is a system used to calculate the distances based in the hypothesis which their luminosity peak is constant, so, as fainter the flux received in our telescopies, as longer the distance from the Earth. The relationship between the distances and the flux is:


F1 and D1 are flux and distance of a near and known SN1A, which distance can be determined by parallax, used as standard reference.
F2 is the measured flux of a more distant SN1A, and D2 is the unknown distance to be calculated.


The “distance modulus” “μ”  is a logarithm scale where:
But,
.
So,
The adopted standard distance D1  is 10 pc, so that simplify the equation, since log10 = 1. The equation so becomes:
.(D2 : pc)   

 This equation works well for low redshifts, but in the Shrinking Matter Theory the flux F2 is affected by the redshift. In the past, the energy of the emissions was smaller, and such energies were spread onto a bigger surface.  
The energy of the emissions in the past is defined by the function Ef = Eo (1+Z) -2/3, and the surface by the function  Sf = 4 π  rf 2.
To nullify the effects of the redshift in flux F2, we should replace it by corrected flux F2c
The F2c is defined by the function:

.

.
.

.
.

Then, the relationship between the fluxes and the distances becomes:





The distance modulus function for the Shrinking Matter Theory becomes:

   




.
.
.



.


.
.

.
.
6.2) The graphic 02 presents the comparative evolution of the distance modulus μ

6.2.1) The observed evolution of the distance modulus μ is represented by square blue points, which were extracted from Betoule et al 2014, Table F1, page 30,  “http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4064v2.pdf “. 

6.2.2) The evolution of the expected μ to the Shrinking Matter Theory, hypothesis A is in red color.
It is defined by the equation:




.D: pc

1 pc = 3,261563777116330E-09 Gly
KA = 20.657582147862  
Z = Redshift

6.2.3) The evolution of the expected μ to the Shrinking Matter Theory, hypothesis B is in green color.
It is defined by the equation:

.
.1 pc = 3,261563777116330E-09 Gly
KB = 13.771 721 421 908
 
Z = Redshift



6.2.4) The evolution of the expected μ to the Standard Model (Hubble law) is in black color.
It is defined by the equation:
                                                    
.
(D2 : pc)    

Z = Redshift
c = light speed = 299792458 m/s
Ho= Hubble constant = 71 km/s /mpc   
1 pc = 3,261563777116330E-09 Gly     

                                                                                                                            
6.2.5) Graphic 02:





.
The curve which best fit to the observational data is the hypothesis A of the Shrinking Matter Theory “shrM_ A_dist_mod”.
No need for dark energy.
Although, both hypothesis A and B could be possible, since the distance modulus is unnecessary to define distances in the shrinking matter theory.






7) Predictions in the SHRINKING MATTER THEORY


7.1) The Effects of the shrinking matter in the local frame

The expansion universe considers that the local frame is not affected by the expansion due the gravitational bond of the bodies. This statement is contradictory because the limit of the gravitational bond is very difficult to define, maybe there is not such limit.
In the shrinking matter theory, the shrinking effect happens everywhere, so the orbit of the Earth and the planets should present an apparent growing along the time.
The distance between the Earth and the Sun is very difficult to determine precisely. The apparent expansion should be about 7.24 m/year. For one this could be a great variation, for others small. The true is that we cannot use a stick to measure it. The fact is that such distance varies every time, since the orbit is elliptical, but the eccentricity of the orbit also varies due the tide effect of the planets of the solar system. Here we have a great challenge to measuring this distance with enough accuracy to detect this variance. 
The only way to measure it precisely should be launching two space telescopies, positioned in the L4 and L5 Sun-Earth Lagrangian points. If we measure precisely the distances between these two points whole the year, we could determine accurately the average distance, and compare the variation year by year.



7.2) The remaining emissions from the last collapsed universe


In the third chapter, we have two possible scenarios concerning to the origin of the CMBs.
If we adopt the second scenario (3.2), we can make an interesting prediction.
When we can get more accurate measurements of CXRBs, probably, we can distinguish two peaks at the end of the lower energetic band. These peaks should be 2025.67 eV and 2400.80 eV detected in our devices, corresponding to the Lyα and Lyβ emissions respectively.

When corrected by the appropriated Planck constant of the reference frame, the energies and the wavelength of these emissions should be:

Lyα:     E = 347.25 eV     λ = 6.1240 Â

Lyβ      E = 411.55 eV     λ = 5.1671 Â

7.2) The faint blue galaxies problem.
In the shrinking matter theory as cyclic universe, we propose the faint blue galaxies are not dwarfs, but normal galaxies in the last universe cycle. Their distances are very bigger than thought. That is why we watch them in small angular sizes and great surface brightness.
If we leave the Andromeda galaxy in the redshift of 0.5 in the last universe cycle, its angular size would be 0.41 arc seconds. The distance would be 111 Gly. This angular size is compatible with measured sizes [5].






8)    Gravity

8.1)  The origin of the gravity defies the physicists since its discovery by Isaac Newton.
Despite the technological advancement and huge investments in research, nothing has been discovered to definitively determine why and how gravity exists. Actually, if we take the wrong way, we never reach the destination.
If we assume matter shrinks, everything becomes clear.
The motion of the electron towards the atom nucleus could produce the necessary field for the emergence of gravity. One may say that this would result a magnetic dipole, and magnetic dipole is neutral, meaning the magnetic fields generated in the poles cancel out. But the electron bonded to the nucleus is not a point like particle, the duality of the electron is the fundamental propriety for the existence and stability of the atom. The electron becomes a cloud and wraps the nucleus.
If we take an infinitely small area on the surface of the atom, this area would produce a magnetic field tangent to the surface of the atom, at inward direction. The equivalent surface in the nucleus, smaller due the small radius, would produce an equivalent magnetic field, but at outward direction. If these two infinitely small points like charges were isolated in the space, they would be an infinitely small magnetic dipole, but these magnetic fields work in different mediums.
The magnetic field produced inside the nucleus work in a medium with extremely high magnetic permeability. The closeness of the fields and the high magnetic permeability could nullify the fields produced inside the nucleus. They should nullify themselves because they point in different directions and the atom would become a magnetic monopole.
Finally the so sought magnetic monopole is found. Actually all atoms are magnetic monopoles. We are magnetic monopoles. The Earth is a magnetic monopole.
Magnetic monopoles have the intrinsic propriety of attract each other, if their magnetic fields are in the same direction, inward or outward. As electrons are in the outer side of the atoms, they are negative magnetic monopoles, i.e. the gravitational magnetic field is in the inward direction.
The strength of the gravitational magnetic field of each atom is directly proportional to its mass.
Each atom is gravitationally bonded to all atoms of the universe. This means the gravitational magnetic field lines are emitted all around the atoms. Each gravitational magnetic field line of one atom has one correspondent parallel gravitational magnetic field line in all atoms of the universe.
Parallel magnetic field lines have the propriety of attract each other when they flow in the same direction. That’s why gravity exists.

The shrinking behavior is the price matter pays to have gravity, but without gravity, the universe would be just dispersed gas.

9)    Conclusions
The cyclic universe would be the best solution to the present cosmologic blunders.
If we adopt the hypothesis A, the total cycle of each phase happens between Z~=10.5  to  Z=-0.99496253

In this scenario, the beginning of the current cycle took place 84.6 billion years ago and there are still 20 billion years left to the end.
The total time of each cycle of the universe would be 104.6 Gyr

The graphic 03 presents the evolution of time in function of redshift in a cyclic universe.









References:

3-     Richard L. Amoroso https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7468/9eb67121a47ac6ebdb3d9940215d53b99b3c.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/31433858/G%C3%B6delizng_Fine_Structure_Gateway_to_Comprehending_the_Penultimate_Nature_of_Reality
5-       Roche, N., Ratnatunga, K., Griffiths, R. E., & Im, M. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1997MNRAS.288..200R/0000212.000.html
6-   Fred C. Adams
      Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
     arXiv:0807.3697v1 [astro-ph] 23 Jul 2008