A neutron star with mass greater that the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) limit M_TOV~3 solar mass M_SUN becomes a black hole in which the star core collapses to a gravitational mass singularity in general relativity [ [1] p172], [ [2] black hole/§2.3]. The quark structure of the neutrons has been neglected. But in these dense stellar objects, gravitational forces are strong and their gradients large so that such a neglect cannot be carried out without appropriate justification. Further, such a singularity contradicts quantum mechanics.

Dark matter needed to account for many observation, e. g., the galaxy rotation curve, and the dark energy required to drive the rapidly expanding universe remain hypothetical as they cannot be observed.

Recently, it was shown [3] that the “hidden”, unobservable relative energy between the diquark and quark in nucleons can interact with their ambient gravitational potential and possibly play the roles of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. The underlying theory is the scalar strong interaction hadron theory SSI [4] [5].

In this paper, it is shown that, as a neutron on the surface of a neutron star with mass ~M_TOV falls toward the star center, not only gravitational energy is released, but a negative relative energy also emerges simultaneously. These two energies can cancel each other and prevent the collapse of the star and formation of a mass singularity. The negative relative energy generated in an expanding galaxy can play the role of dark matter and account for the galaxy rotation curve. The positive relative energy generated in outer regions of the universe can play the role of dark energy, leads to accelerating expansion of the universe and may eventually give rise to cosmic rays.

The relevant parts of SSI are outlined in Sections 2-5. Creation of negative relative energy applied to neutron star collapse is considered in Sections 6-7. In Section 8, such negative relative energy reinforces the existing gravitational potential in an expanding galaxy to account for the galaxy rotation curve qualitatively. The accelerating expansion of the universe by means of the positive relative energy created in the outer parts of the universe is qualitatively outlined in Section 9. Some scenarios of the outer regions of the universe including cosmic ray generation are shown in Section 10. The so-obtained scenario of the universe is summarized in Section 11.

The starting point is the Dirac equations for three quarks A, B and C with masses m_A, m_B and m_C located at x_I, x_II and x_III, respectively. The quarks interact with each other via scalar strong potentials V_AB(x_I), V_AC(x_I), ⋯ in [ [6] (2.1-3) or [4] [5] (9.1.1-3)]. These equations are in van der Waerden’s spinor form which is manifestly Lorentz covariant contrary to the conventional bispinor Dirac equation which is not. For quark B, for instance, the equations read

∂ I I d e ˙ χ B e ˙ ( x I I ) − i ( V B C ( x I I ) + V B A ( x I I ) + V B G ( x I I ) ) ψ B d ( x I I ) = i m B ψ B d ( x I I ) (2.1.a)

∂ I I   e ˙ f ψ B f ( x I I ) − i ( V B C ( x I I ) + V B A ( x I I ) + V B G ( x I I ) ) χ B e ˙ ( x I I ) = i m B χ B e ˙ ( x I I ) (2.1.b)

where ∂ I = ∂ / ∂ x I , ⋯ . The spinor indices run from 1 to 2 and the quark spinors χ_B and ψ_B are linear combinations of the four components in the conventional Dirac bispinor ψ according to [ [4] [5] (C11)]. m_B is quark mass, about 2/3 of the proton mass [ [4] [5] Table 5.2]. The scalar strong potentials V_BA and V_BC generated by quark A and C, respectively, are governed by [ [6] (2.4) or [4] [5] (9.1.4)]. There is no gauge fields for electromagnetic interactions between the quarks. Here, the scalar gravitational potential V_GB from ambient matter and energy, neglected in the references, has been included.

To construct baryon wave functions, the three pairs of quark equations, one of them being (2.1), together with the cited strong potential equations, are multiplied together and the products of the quark spinors and those of the strong potentials are generalized to baryon wave functions and baryon potentials nonseparable in x_I, x_II and x_III according to [ [4] [5] Sec. 9.2]. For ground state baryons, quark C at x_III has been merged into quark A at x_I to form a diquark at x_I. The nearly intractable three body problem is thus reduced to a manageable two body problem.

In [ [4] [5] Sec. 9.3], each quark mass above has been generalized to a quark mass operator operatng on a flavour function in a fictitious, complex internal or flavour space z^p, where p runs from 1 to 6 representing the six quark flavours. The quark mass is recovered as eigenvalue of such an operator. The three flavour functions, one for each quark, are analogously multiplied together and generalized to a nonseparable baryon flavour function. The product of the three mass operators are similarly generalized to a nonseparable baryon mass operator in the flavour space and leads to a mass M_b [ [4] [5] (9.3.19)] representing the quark mass contribution to the baryon mass.

The baryon flavour function can now be removed leaving behind the ground state baryon wave equation [ [6] (2.9)], [ [4] [5] (9.3.16)]

∂ I a b ˙ ∂ I g h ˙ ∂ I I   e ˙ f χ { b ˙ h ˙ }           f ( x I , x I I ) = − i ( M b 3 + Φ b ( x I , x I I ) ) ψ               e ˙ { a g } ( x I , x I I ) (2.2a)

∂ I   b ˙ c ∂ I   h ˙ k ∂ I I d e ˙ ψ               e ˙ { c k } ( x I , x I I ) = − i ( M b 3 + Φ b ( x I , x I I ) ) { b ˙ h ˙ }             d ( x I , x I I ) (2.2b)

M b = ( m A + m B + m C ) / 2 (2.2c)

The interbaryon strong potential Φ_b is a triple product of three strong interaction quark potentials of the type of V_BA and V_BC in (2.1) and is governed by [ [4] [5] (9.2.13b)]. The six component χ and ψ can be decomposed into a quartet or spin 3/2 part, which can be separated off, leaving behind a doublet or spin 1/2 part [ [4] [5] (10.0.6)]:

∂ I a b ˙ ∂ I I f e ˙ ∂ I e f ˙ χ 0 b ˙ ( x I , x I I ) = − i 2 ( M b 3 + Φ b ( x I , x I I ) ) ψ 0 a ( x I , x I I ) (2.3a)

∂ I   b ˙ c ∂ I I   e ˙ h ∂ I   h ˙ e ψ 0 c ( x I , x I I ) = − i 2 ( M b 3 + Φ b ( x I , x I I ) ) χ 0 b ˙ ( x I , x I I ) (2.3b)

where χ₀ and ψ₀ the wave functions of the doublet baryons.

Since quarks cannot be observed, their coordinate spaces are converted into an observable laboratory space X^μ for the baryon and a relative space x between the diquark and the quark via the linear transformation given above [ [7] (6.2)] or by [ [6] (5.1)],[ [4] [5] (3.1.3a)]

x μ = x I I μ − x I μ ,                   X μ = ( 1 − a m ) x I μ + a m x I I μ (3.1)

For observable particles, a_m is often determined by that X^μ is the center of mass of these particles. If these particles have equal mass, a_m = 1/2. Such kind of determination cannot be done here because quarks are not observable individually. a_m has been taken to be an arbitrary real constant and represents a new degree of freedom. The relative space x = ( x 0 , x _ ) is “hidden” [ [4] [5] (3.1.3)] and cannot be observed. If it were observable, then (3.1), with a given a_m, leads to that both the diquark at x_I and quark at x_II become observables, contrary to experience. This can also be seen directly in the first of (3.1) in which the right side members cannot be measured; hence x^μ is also “hidden”, independent of a_m. It turns out that the bulk of hadron physics in SSI lies in such “hidden” spaces.

The baryon wave functions in (2.1) have been factorized into the form of [ [4] [5] (10.1.1)],

χ 0 b ˙ ( x I , x I I ) = χ 0 b ˙ ( x _ ) exp ( − i K μ X μ + i ω K x 0 ) ψ 0 a ( x I , x I I ) = ψ 0 a ( x _ ) exp ( − i K μ X μ + i ω K x 0 ) (3.2)

K μ = ( E K , − K _ ) [ [4] [5] (3.1.6)] = (3.3)

where E_K is the energy of the baryon and K its momentum. x⁰ is the relative time and −ω_K the associated relative energy in the “hidden” relative space and can also not be observed within SSI.

In spherical coordinates, x _ = ( r , θ , ϕ ) [ [4] [5] (3.1.7b)], the doublet wave functions in (3.2) with total angular momentum j = 1/2 and orbital angular momentum l = 0 read [ [4] [5] (10.2.3)]

ψ 0 1 ( x _ ) = g 0 ( r ) Y 00 ( θ , ϕ ) + i f 0 ( r ) 1 3 Y 10 ( θ , ϕ ) ,               ψ 0 2 ( x _ ) = i f 0 ( r ) 2 3 Y 11 ( θ , ϕ ) (3.4)

where the Y’s are the usual spherical harmonics. χ 0 a ˙ is found by changing the signs of f₀(r) in (3.4).

Consider baryons at rest, K = 0. a_m = 1/2 is set as in the meson case [ [4] (3.5.7)], [ [5] (5.7.2)]. Similarly, the “hidden” relative energy −ω₀ = 0 is also set following the meson case [ [4] (3.5.6)], [ [5] (5.7.1)]. Insertion of (3.1-4) into (2.3) using [ [4] [5] (3.1.4)] leads to the radial wave equations [ [6] (6.9)], [ [4] [5] (10.2.12)]

[ E 0 3 8 + M b 3 + Φ b d ( r ) + E 0 2 Δ 0 ] g 0 ( r ) + ( E 0 2 4 + Δ 0 ) ( ∂ ∂ r + 2 r ) f 0 ( r ) = 0 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (4.1a)

[ E 0 3 8 − M b 3 − Φ b d ( r ) + E 0 2 Δ 1 ] f 0 ( r ) − ( E 0 2 4 + Δ 1 ) ∂ ∂ r g 0 ( r ) = 0 (4.1b)

where the subscript d denotes doublet and [ [4] [5] (10.2.2a)] gives the diquark-quark strong interaction potential

Φ b d ( r ) = d b r + d b 0 + d b 1 r + d b 2 r 2 + d b 4 r 4 (4.2)

here, the nonlinear potential Φ_cd(x) [ [4] [5] (10.2.2)] vanishes for large normalization volume Ω_cb®∞ in [ [4] [5] (10.3.14)]. The d_b’s are unknown integration constants.

The two coupled third order Equations (4.1) have been converted into six first order equations [ [4] (10.7.5)], [ [5] (10.4.5)] which have six linearly independent solutions each associated with its own λ₊ values in [ [4] [5] (10.2 8a)] found from the sixth order indicial equation [ [5] (10.4.4)]. These eventually led to two free parameters w₍₁₎ and w₍₂₎ in [ [4] [5] (11.1.1)]. It turned out that only d_b4 = 0 led to results in near agreement with data [ [5] §11.1.3]. Thus, there are four d_b and two w totalling six constants that can be varied to satisfy the six boundary conditions posed by the six first order system.

Due to the large number of unknown constants, (4.1-2) could not be solved as a conventional eigenvalue problem. A less ambitious approach has been adopted. The known mass of the neutron is used as input for the eigenvalue E₀ and the quark masses obtained from meson spectra given in [ [4] [5] Table 5.2] are used as input for M_b according to (2.2c) where m_A = m_C is the d quarks mass and m_B the u quark mass. The six first order equations [ [4] (10.7.5)], [ [5] (10.4.5)] have been solved on a computer. It turned out that given a d_b2 value, the remaining five constants can be freely chosen such that g₀(r) and f₀(r) converge at large r. This is allowed since this takes place in the “hidden” relative space.

Here, the word “finite” on the first line of the second paragraph on [ [5] p239] turned out to be incorrect in subsequent numerical calculations and should be changed to “infinite”; d_b2 can be varied continuously to yield converging g₀(r) and f₀(r). One so-obtained neutron wave functions are plotted in [ [4] Figure 12.1], [ [5] Figure 11.1b] reproduced in Figure 1.

These wave functions have led to the nearly correct predictions of the neutron life and the electron asymmetry parameter A or the neutrino asymmetry parameter B [ [5] Table 12.1] in its beta decay.

If a_m = 1/2 and −ω₀ = 0 used in (4.1) were not assumed, a derivative in (2.3) operated on (3.2) will, in terms of (3.1) [see [4] [5] (3.1.4)], be changed as follows

∂ I a b ˙ = ( 1 − a m ) ∂ X a b ˙ − ∂ a b ˙ = ( 1 − a m ) ( − δ a b ˙ ∂ X 0 − σ _ a b ˙ ∂ X _ 2 ) + δ a b ˙ ∂ 0 + σ _ a b ˙ ∂ _ = δ a b ˙ i 1 2 E 0 + σ _ a b ˙ ∂ _ → δ a b ˙ i ( ( 1 − a m ) E 0 + ω 0 ) + σ _ a b ˙ ∂ _ (5.1)

The expressions on both sides of the arrow will be equal if [ [7] (6.6) or [4] [5] (3.1.10a)]

a m = 1 2 + ω 0 E 0 (5.2)

which keeps (4.1) invariant. The relative energy −ω₀ is “hidden” with respect to strong and electromagnetic but not gravitational interactions [3]. This is indicated by V_BG in (2.1), which has been neglected in SSI because it is generally small next to the strong V_BA, V_BC there. In neutron stars and black holes, however, V_BG can be large and may not be neglected. Since a_m,hence also ω₀, can take on any real value, from −∞ to +∞, the relative energy can be important is astrophysics.

In [3], −ω₀ > 0 is identified as dark energy and −ω₀ < 0 plays the role of dark matter. Both E₀ and ω₀ are observables with respect to gravitational forces. Lorentz invariance leads to that the associated baryon momentum K in (3.3) and the relative momentum represented by ∂ _ in (5.1) are also observables. Thus, the conjugate variables X, the coordinate of the baryon, and x, the relative coordinate in (3.1), are also observables, remembering that x is still a “hidden” variable with respect to strong forces. By (3.1), both the diquark coordinate x_I and quark coordinate x_II are now observables with respect to gravitation indicated by V_BG in (2.1).

Consider the following idealized scenario. A neutron star with a mass M_NS = M_NSa, a critical mass, such that the quantum degeneracy pressure of the neutrons and the strong neutron-neutron repulsion precisely balance off the gravitational pressure. Let an external neutron arrive at the surface of this star. The star now becomes too heavy and a gravitational collapse is anticipated to start. Conventionally, this collapse gives rise to a black hole and continues until the star ends up in a mass singularity at its center; the quark structure of the neutron is ignored. Actually, in neutron stars and black holes, the gravitational forces are strong and their gradients large that the diquark-quark structure of the neutron may need be taken into account. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 2.

In Figure 2, an external neutron arrives on the surface of the neutron star at position a on the right part of the figure. The interquark distance is x I I , a − x I , a = r a ~ 4 fm according to Figure 1. X_a lies in the middle corresponding to a_m = 1/2 in (3.1) and (4.1) and hence ω₀ = 0 by (5.2). This neutron falls from X_a to X_b. To begin with, the three positions x_I,a, X_a and x_II,a are simply

shifted to the left to become x_I,b,X_b and x_II,b, respectively. The diquark-quark distance r b = x I I , b − x I , b = r a remains unchanged. In the same fall, however, the neutron star radius at position b is reduced to R_b < R_q due to gravitational collapse. The incoming neutron is thus similarly compressed to become smaller by a factor of R_b/R_a so that r_b is also reduced to a smaller value r_bG by the same factor;

r b = x I I , b − x I , b → r b G = x I I , b G − x I , b = r a α ,                   α = R b / R a < 1 (6.1)

As was mentioned at the end of Section 5, gravity interacts directly with the quark at x_II in (2.1), hence also with that in Figure 2. Phenomenologically, it also interacts with the diquark at x_I in Figure 2. An equation of motion for the diquark on par with (2.1) for the quark has not been constructed. In an eventual such equation, the diquark mass is expected to be about twice the mass of the quark in (2.1) or at least greater than it. Assuming this, gravity will pull the diquark closer to the star center relative to the quark, as is indicated in Figure 2. Note that the quark and the diquark are point particles in quantum theory and hence cannot be “spaghettified” here. The radius R_b of the star at position b is taken to be x_I,b

If X_b were taken to be the star radius R_b at position b, then the diquark coordinate x_I,_b in Figure 2 would be negative at the star center X_b = 0, contrary to the requirement that a radius ≥ 0. Practically, X_b and R_b are of the magnitude km while their difference is of magnitude fm; both are nearly the same.

The radial wave Equations (4.1-2) hold for the arriving neutron in position a. At position b, (6.1) shows that the diquark-quark distance or radius r in (4.1) is reduced by a factor of α. Equations (4.1-2) remain invariant under the transformations r → r α , E 0 → E 0 / α , M b → M b / α , d b 2 → d b 2 / α 5 , ⋯ . The neutron mass E₀ and the quark masses in M_b at position b are unchanged. So does also the confining constant d_b2 = −0.3202 in Figure 1; this value is tied up by neutron decay [ [5] §12.6.3]. The remaining three d_b and two w constants mentioned above Figure 1 can be varied to produce converging g₀(αr) and f₀(αr) analogous to the computations that led to Figure 1. These wave functions will obviously be much narrower than those in Figure 1 having an average width of αr_a~4α fm.

Application of (3.1), (5.2) and (6.1) to position b in Figure 1 yields

a m = 1 2 + ω 0 E 0 = 1 + X b − x I I , b G x I I , b G − x I , b = 1 2 r a r b G = R a 2 R b ,             − ω 0 E 0 = − R a 2 ( 1 R b − 1 R a ) (7.1)

where −ω₀ is the relative energy gained when the external neutron arriving at position a falls to position b. In this fall, the gravitational energy E_G released is given by

E G E 0 = R S a 2 ( 1 R b − 1 R a ) ,                     R S a = 2 G M N S a (7.2)

where G is the gravitational constant and R_Sa is the Schwarzschild radius of this collapsing star with radius R_a in Figure 2. These two energies cancel each other when the star’s radius

R a = R S a (7.3)

i.e., when the neutron star in Figure 2 with the critical mass M_NSa has a radius R_a equal to its Schwarzschild radius R_Sa. At the star center R_b = 0, both energies become infinite but these both singularities cancel; no net mass singularity is created when (7.3) holds. This is consistent with that SSI is a quantum theory not allowing such a singularity. Note that when approaching the star center and R_b becomes of the size of the neutron of a few fm. For R_a ~10 km; a_m = R_a/2R_b is a huge number ~10¹⁸.

In this case, the fall of this external neutron actually gains no energy because E_G − ω₀ = 0 for all R_b. This neutron therefore remains at position a and becomes “weightless”. The anticipated collapse of the neutron star does not start and no mass singularity is created.

The radius R_a of the initial neutron star has been estimated by equating gravitational pressure to the pressure of the degenerate neutrons [ [1] p161]

R a = 0.0026 R E a r t h ( M S U N M N S a ) 1 / 3 (7.4)

which together with (7.2-3) yields R_a = R_Sa = 10.8 km and M_NSa = 3.6M_SUN. This mass is consistent with the similarly estimated maximum mass 4.3M_SUN [ [1] p162] of a neutron star. It is of somewhat higher than M_TOV~3M_SUN. cited in Section 1. However, estimates of M_TOV are uncertain and vary widely due to that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well known and to uncertain effects of neutron-neutron repulsion and of pressure in general relativity [ [1] p162]. Thus, the so-estimated star mass may be used on equal footing with those in the literature.

A possible scenario is as follows. As additional neutrons arrive at the star surface, a thin shell of weightless neutrons is added to the star at first. Let the mass of this shell be ΔM_NSa, the new Schwarzschild radius will be R S a Δ = ( 1 + Δ ) R S a and the new star radius will be R a Δ = ( 1 + Δ ) 1 / 3 R a ,assuming that the neutron density in the shell is the same as that in the star.

Since R_SaΔ > R_aΔ, a black hole is created. As a new neutron arrive at the new star surface with radius R_aΔ, it will tend to fall inwards. This time, the gravitational energy (7.2) will slightly exceed the relative energy loss (7.1) and this new neutron tends to fall slowly. However, the pressure of the degenerate neutron gas in the shell is now unopposed by the weightless neutrons and this gas will therefore expand accompanied by a reduced density. If the expansion reaches a radius > R_SaΔ, the back hole is lost and this enlarged star will be a visible neutron star similar to the initial star in Figure 2. If the expansion stops just inside R_SaΔ, the created black hole persists and one arrives at a situation nearly the same as that on the right part of Figure 2 with R_a replaced by R_aΔ and (7.3) holds. This process may be repeated and more shells are added. It can in principle lead to a super-massive black hole. How the neutrons, part of them “weightless”, are distributed inside such a black hole is unknown and needs not be known, inasmuch as they are inside its Schwarzschild radius and cannot be observed any way; there is no conflict with observation.

In this scenario, the neutrons in such a black hole fill it up to its Schwarzschild radius. Such a black hole may more suitably be called a “black” neutron star. The absence of mass singularity here is consistent with the conjecture that an eventual future quantum gravity theory will not contain any singularity.

There is a large body of data that require the presence of dark matter. The first one is the galaxy rotation curve [ [2] Dark Matter §3.1]. However, nothing is known about this hypothetical dark matter. In [3], this matter has been identified as the negative relative energy −ω₀ < 0 between the diquark and quark in nucleon. Here, the role of the dark matter in accounting for this rotation curve will be played by this −ω₀.

Consider again an idealized scenario as follows. A spiral galaxy with an appreciable part of its mass consisting of hydrogen gas was in its earlier stage of development. In that stage, this galaxy was smaller, denser and hotter according to the big bang model and the gravitational potential resisting such an expansion was insufficient. It therefore expanded. The situation is analogous to a violation of Jeans criterion for a gas cloud.

To illustrate the mechanism, let us turn off the gravity for a moment. Follow now the movement of a proton, denoted by c, in a hydrogen molecule. In this thermal expansion, this molecule will collide with other molecules, exchange energy and momentum with them and end up in a new position, labeled d, farther out from the galaxy center. In this journey, the forces involved are all Coulomb forces, between the proton and the orbiting electron and between the orbiting electrons in other molecules. The protons get dragged along; their quark structure is not involved in the expansion.

The situation is illustrated in Figure 3.

In Figure 3, the coordinate of proton c is X_c which lies in the middle between the diquark at x_1,c and quark at x_I1,c. This corresponds to a_m = 1/2 and ω₀ = 0 in (7.1) for a free baryon at rest, similar to those for the neutron in position a in Figure 2. In this thermal expansion, these three coordinates are simply shifted to the right with X c → X d _. The new x_I,c and x_II,c are on both sides of X_d with the same separation distance.

Turn now on gravity, the situation is reversed. Gravitational effects on electrons are negligible due to their small mass. Gravitational forces now act on this proton at X_d and try to pull it back together with other protons acted upon. However, they turn out to be too small to account for the galaxy rotation curve and prevent the escape of the outer stars. Here, such escapes are prevented by including the negative energies generated by differentiated gravitational pull on quarks and proton.

Just like the neutron star case mentioned below (6.1), gravity also acts directly on the quarks and tends to pull them towards the galaxy center, with the heavier diquark at x_I,d closer to this center than does the lighter quark at x_I1,d,as is shown in Figure 3. Here, the diquark-quark distance x I I , c − x I , c = x I I , d − x I , d = r a ≈ 4 fm as was mentioned below Figure 2. This distance is fixed by the strong interquark potential (4.2) and is unaffected by gravity here; the core collapse situation in position b of Figure 2 is absent here.

Applying (3.1) the gravity pulled position d in Figure 3 yields the relative energy −ω₀ given by

a m = 1 2 + ω 0 E 0 = X d − x I , d x I I , d − x I , d ,             − ω 0 E 0 = 1 2 − X d − x I , d r a ,             r a = x I I , d − x I , d ≈ 4   fm (8.1)

This energy has the same negative sign as the gravitational potential energy produced by matter inside X_d and hence reinforces it to become large enough to keep the outer stars of the galaxy from escaping. It is due to the lag of the “hidden” quark coordinates x_I,d, x_1I,d behind the observable proton coordinate X_din Figure 3, caused by gravitational pull, in the expansion. This lag is caused by that the mass of the diquark and the quark is greater than the proton mass E₀ itself, as can be seen below (2.1) and (6.1); the unobservable quarks experience greater gravitational pull than does the proton containing them. The difference between these two masses is taken up by the strong, confining potential F_bd(r) of (4.2) in the “hidden”, relative space.

The required energy is -w₀» -5.5E₀ per proton, when averaged over the whole universe, and is generated for “free” at “no cost”. This −ω₀ value leads to a_m ≈ 6 ( [3] §6.1) so that the “whole” size of this gravitationally polarized proton in Figure 3 becomes X_d − x_I,d ≈ 24 fm by (8.1). Further, the proton in a hydrogen atom moves in an orbit around the center of gravity of the electron-proton system. This orbit has a diameter ≈ 60 fm so that X_d is uncertain by this amount which is greater than the above 24 fm in Figure 3; there will be no observational difference.

This scenario, characterized by Figure 3, is also expected to have dominated in the earlier stages of the universe when it was smaller, hotter, denser, and fast expanding.

The observed accelerating expansion of the universe is currently considered to be due to assumed dark energy in the outer regions of the universe. This hypothetical energy may here be replaced by the positive relative energy −ω₀ > 0 corresponding to a_m < 1/2 in (8.1).

As in Sections 6 and 8, consider the following idealized scenario. The expansion mechanism in Section 8 applied to a galaxy can analogously be used in some later stage of the development of the universe. In the outer part of the universe, its expansion leads to that the hydrogen gas density decreases and the gas temperature drops there. The expansion nearly comes to a halt. In this region, the gas is tenuous, cold and experiences very weak gravitational force.

Consider a proton in a hydrogen molecule of this gas. The configuration of this proton in position d of Figure 3, with the galaxy replaced by the universe, has now largely returned to its original form in position c of Figure 3. This proton is also similar to the neutron in position a of Figure 2 with a_m»1/2 and the pulling energy-w₀< 0 approaching -w₀» 0. The situation is illustrated in position e of Figure 4.

Let a second hydrogen molecule arrive at position e simultaneously. It contains a second proton with its diquark and quark at the same x_I,e and x_II,e. Due to differences in the paths of these both molecules before they reach position e, this second proton may end up at nearby X e − = X e − Δ ( x I I , e − x I , e ) or X e + = X e + Δ ( x I I , e − x 1 , e ) where Δ ≪ 1 .

If its position is X_e+, then (8.1) yields a negative relative energy − ω 0 = − Δ E 0 < 0 . Analogous to the situation below (8.1), this small energy tends to pull the quarks toward the left in Figure 4 into the inner region of the universe. This tendency is countered by the slightly higher gas pressure inside X_e. No appreciable net movement of the quarks is expected; the situation is stable.

If its position is X_e−, then (8.1) yields a positive relative energy − ω 0 = − Δ E 0 > 0 . Contrary to the above X_e+ case, this small energy tends to push the quarks outward, towards the right part of Figure 4. This tendency is reinforced by the slightly higher gas pressure inside X_e; Δ increases and a_m decreases. The quarks move toward the outer region of the universe but the observable proton coordinate X_e− lags behind; this situation is opposite to that for X_e+ above or to that in position d in Figure 3 mentioned below (8.1). After some time, the unobservable quarks arrive at x_I,f and x_II,f in Figure 4. Application of (8.1) to the coordinates in position f indicates that a_m has decreased from 1/2−Δ at position e to <0 at position f so that the positive relative energy −ω₀ by (8.1) has grown appreciably to >E₀/2. This new, larger positive relative energy further pushes the quarks outwards at a greater pace and tends to increase the lag of the proton coordinate X_e-f behind the quark coordinates x_I,f, x_II,f in Figure 4. This by (8.1) generates still greater −ω₀ > 0 which gives still greater pushing force on the quarks. This is an unstable, “run away” situation which can in principle continue forever. The driving relative energy is “free”, “costs nothing” and is not conserved. If this mechanism is applied to all protons in the outer regions of the universe, an acceleratingly expanding universe emerges.

Current data show that dark energy exceeds the energy of ordinary matter by a factor of ≈14 when averaged over the universe. Identifying this energy with −ω₀, (8.1) leads to a_m = −13.5 ( [3] §6.1). This value and (8.1) give the “whole” size of this second proton at position f in Figure 4 x_II,f − X_e−f = 58 fm which is close to but still within the error margin ≈ 60 fm for X_e−f mentioned at the end of Section 8. This margin is small relative to the size of hydrogen atom and does not alter its behavior as a hydrogen atom.

This scenario, characterized by Figure 4, also dominates in the later stages of the universe when it has become large.

The present results lead to the following scenario for the universe.

1) The universe contains neither dark matter nor dark energy.

2) A heavy neutron star with mass = M_TOV and radius = its Schwarzschild radius does not collapse into a mass singularity and may be called a “black” neutron star. If every neutron star gets heavier, becomes a black hole and passes through this stage in its development, there will be no mass singularity in the universe, in agreement with that quantum mechanics does not allow such a singularity.

3) The run away instability in Section 9 provides a mechanism for an accelerating expansion of the universe. The driving positive relative energy is “free” and “costs nothing”. The density and temperature of the universe will decrease with time. This scenario may in principle go on forever.

4) In outer parts of the universe, fast expanding hydrogen gas may turn into plasma and part of it may become cosmic rays. There may also exist a scenario in which the above free expansion can halt and eventually reverts to contraction.

The above results are derived phenomenologically by joining SSI to aspects of general relativity. A formal integration of these both theories is beyond reach; no quantum gravity theory exists presently.

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Hoh, F.C. (2019) Cosmic Applications of Relative Energy between Quarks in Nucleons. Journal of Modern Physics, 10, 1645-1658. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1014108