IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: New Physics
Topic Summary:
Created On: 12 August 2013 04:58 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 12 August 2013 04:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Yahoo has just issued the story on evidence for new physics universe :-
"First evidence that the universe is not as we know it has emerged from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the giant atom-smashing machine built to recreate conditions at the dawn of time.
Confirmation of the results, showing minute deviations in the behaviour of a sub-atomic particle, would indicate the existence of a "New Physics" model of the universe.
Until now scientists have relied on the "Standard Model", a description of the nuts and bolts mechanics of the universe - its particles and forces - that has worked well but contains serious gaps."

The problem is that the basic assumption that energy is related to mass and gravity is flawed. Wikipedia still defines a photon as a fundamental particle. What nonsense is this?? Any energy pulse wave that moves at the speed of light, cannot contain matter but is comprised of 100% 3D electromagnetic flux. Magnoflux energy.
Must we waste another decade of mathematically ignoring the magnetic forces that hold the universe together instead of getting on and finding what makes cosmic systems spin and spiral together??
CliveS
 12 August 2013 07:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Clive,

More power to your elbow! It is a great change to find someone who is prepared to stick out the neck and query what has come to be an accepted nonsense.

I agree entirely that modern physics is on very shaky ground with its foundations shot by all manner of "holes" many of which are based on the abuse of all the rules of mathematics which have been developed by man over many centuries. It is very shortsighted to assume that a discipline based on observations which, of necessity, are Earth-bound and so may not apply on the immense scale of the Universe.

At the same time we must recognise the egoism of mankind; it is a general practice of men, apart from women, to seek to amend and to bend to our will that which we have already created and in an effort to follow that most important practice of saving face, to rubbish anything that suggests we've got it wrong?

No, you are not alone in your query. I have spent (wasted?) Most of my spare time over some forty-five years in pursuit of an alternative and it does at least offer a creditable new look. But... I have long since accepted that the work will be buried or burnt along with me.

Ken Green
 13 August 2013 03:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: acsinuk

The problem is that the basic assumption that energy is related to mass and gravity is flawed.


Are you sure? Perhaps it is only half flawed at most, in a way that does not make the qualitative oversight quantitatively incorrect (e.g. in regards to E=mc^2 and whether the energy can be further partitioned and reclassified somehow).


Wikipedia still defines a photon as a fundamental particle. What nonsense is this??


If you want to reinvent the photon then you have to reinvent the electron. If you want to reinvent the electron you have to rewrite Maxwell's theory so it incorporates the concept of the electron and the concept of mass. Then you have to rewrite gravitational theory and everything else to boot. All quite hard.

Anyway you cannot completely reinvent the photon. As I see it the concept of the photon (or light quantum) in light emission phenomena has to remain; it is essential to the physics of black body radiation for example.

Your only chance is to get rid of the photon is to look at light transmission and light absorption.theory e.g. the electron might gradually absorb and integrate classical electromagnetic light energy at specific well defined frequencies up a limit, at which point there is a collapse and the electron then emits a photon's worth of energy in a specific direction and with an associated recoil.

[Does anyone have a theory of circular waveguides that can allow em-energy integrate up to a certain limit before all the energy is released in one go in a specific direction?]

Anyway complexities mount in this direction, and here is where I get really lost, because if you want to think like this then then the only way of proceeding may be to postulate that the electron can change size, in sympathy with the physical properties of its environment (the properties of space.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that an electron, is some sort of a circular rotating standing wave of electromagnetic energy that precesses or spins about a cental axis. If the electron can't orbit the central nucleus as in the Bohr model (because classical electromagnetism doesn't allow this), can it be thought of as some sort of energy waveguide and whilst at the same time able to change size enough to account for experimental properties attributed to the orbit; in an environment heavily mediated by the properties of the central nucleus (in particular its mass)?

[Does anyone have a theory of circular waveguides that can allow em-energy integrate up to a certain limit before all the energy is released in one go in a specific direction, with the frequencies emitted depending linearly with the size of the wave guide?]


If you think this way then at the very least you have to think about Hydrogen spectral series and the origin of the Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, Pfund Series etc (because it is only possible to associate one of these series at a time with a circular "wave-guide" electron that can change size).

Are these series created by electrons in different hydrogen atoms in a chain of atoms, made stable by the electric field required for the hydrogen gas spectra experiment?

How would you distinguish this hypothesis from the predictions of the current quantum theory?

Perhaps you have to look at and study the origin and formation of Hydrogen spectra more closely (as a sort of experimental narrative), and relate that somehow to the creation and destruction of atomic chains in the gas at each stage of the experiment)

And even if you succeed in this little battle there are piles and piles of other experimental and theoretical issues to address, including rewriting Maxwell's theory to incorporate the concept of mass, and then reinterpreting the results of special relativity, rewriting gravitational theory and everything else based upon that.

Physicists are not really up for rethinking what a photon is and what an electron is because everything they already "know" has to change as well.



Any energy pulse wave that moves at the speed of light, cannot contain matter but is comprised of 100% 3D electromagnetic flux. Magnoflux energy.


Depends how you define matter. Light definitely doesn't contain matter in motion, but it nevertheless has momentum. If you took an instantaneous snapshot of a light wave, you will theretically conclude that it consists of a spatially varying energy density.

There may be some relation between how the instantaneous spatically varying energy density of a light wave behaves and the energy density surrounding a particle behaves. The relation between the two will have to arise from your new theory of space, most likely originating in your revised electromagnetic theory that incorporates mass (or perhaps mass squared for better relativistic compatibility).


Must we waste another decade of mathematically ignoring the magnetic forces that hold the universe together instead of getting on and finding what makes cosmic systems spin and spiral together??


Magnetic forces are not ignored they are just far too small to account for much in deep inter-sellar space (even though they exist there).

Stellar and Galaxy Red shifts when interpreted as a Doppler shift tell us that the universe is expanding. So there are no forces, not even gravity, capable of holding the universe together according to this view. If you don't believe Stellar and Galaxy Red shifts are Doppler shifts then you have to come up with a different theory, that makes sense when set against everything else.

Take it or leave it, that's my view.

James Arathoon



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 15 August 2013 01:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

.Hi James,
Thanks for the reply. It really is very, very difficult to unlearn what we have been taught; but that is what the concept of new physics is all about
In 1956 at Copenhagen it was decided that gravity only was necessary to explain the majority of movements of stars and galaxies, although Hubbles details of several typical shapes of galaxies as discs, spiral, bar-spirals and conicals with spin was common knowledge at the time that would need to be explain later.
Despite this obvious magnetic connection cosmologists preferred to believe that stars were just rotated by chance at creation; as spin is not a gravity related force. Anyway, do the ground work of balancing the universe first and then adjust the model for the electromagnetic effect later if necessary was the consensus .
However, a massive gamma ray burst in 1979 baffled scientists until it was finally traced to a magnetar which exploded magnetically without the assistance of gravity. At that time this seemed reasonable and why complicate the standard model with the minimal effects that electric and magnetic fields might have. That was the wisdom of the day.

But that day past over 10 years ago when NASA started the WMAP program to find the density of matter in the universe. Their conclusion issued 9 years later is 4.6% matter, 24% dark matter and 71.4% dark energy. To sum up; there is less than 28.6% of the shining and dark matter required to balance the universe using the existing gravitation model. We need a new physics model and now!
A further complication has since arisen, in the form of super massive black holes that appeared at the centre of all galaxies which befuddled gravitationalists declared to have almost infinite gravity; that may lead through worm holes to the outside of a parallel universe. Anything including light, that crosses inside these black holes event horizons; physicists then fantasized, got sucked inside and absorbed into nothingness. This is all conjecture and there is no WMAP evidence to support that view.

We need a new physics model that fits the facts. Well, there is an alternative electric view that considers that gravity is not the only force in space and conceives a super massive black hole as an induced magnetic hub at the centre of all galaxies. This hub may show all the signs of being massive but contain no matter at all. However, it does allow the magnetically bonded stars to rotate and know where each other are, thus forcing them to avoid collisions. This dark magnetic energy repulsive force is predicted to be about four times the force of gravity and will finally achieve the balance of the universe that cosmologists are looking for.
Due to the intense magnetic field at the galactic centre, any particles that get inside the magnetic hub will be rotated in a clockwise direction until their speed is such as to be ejected as high energy gamma radiation. Even light will appear to deviate either to the right or left of the vertical magnetic field because its DC magnoflux tunnel will be forced to deviate around the outside of the hub. This galactic magnetic hub will definitely look like a black hole to an observer or cosmologist.
I will come back to cover so of your individual points later.
CliveS
 17 August 2013 09:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: jarathoon
Are you sure? Perhaps it is only half flawed at most, in a way that does not make the qualitative oversight quantitatively incorrect (e.g. in regards to E=mc^2 and whether the energy can be further partitioned and reclassified somehow).

If it is half flawed then it is flawed.
If you want to reinvent the photon then you have to reinvent the electron. If you want to reinvent the electron you have to rewrite Maxwell's theory so it incorporates the concept of the electron and the concept of mass. Then you have to rewrite gravitational theory and everything else to boot. All quite hard.

In science we have to change our understanding and look for new rules etc., when the old ones are found to be flawed. The harder that is the harder we should work.

Physicists are not really up for rethinking what a photon is and what an electron is because everything they already "know" has to change as well.

I think we will find that those who are not up for it are either afraid to admit their learnings and teachings were wrong or else are too old in mind to change. I am quite sure the 'younger' ones will be up for the challenge. Anyway I do not see our current understanding as an error, it is just another step in the human journey of learning how things work.
Depends how you define matter. Light definitely doesn't contain matter in motion, but it nevertheless has momentum. If you took an instantaneous snapshot of a light wave, you will theretically conclude that it consists of a spatially varying energy density.

Maybe light has a very tiny amount of something which starts the momentum but then that something is soon lost during its travels.

Magnetic forces are not ignored they are just far too small to account for much in deep inter-sellar space (even though they exist there).

Have we visited there recently? When these scientists speak/write about their theories on Black Holes, distant galaxies, etc., has anyone actually been to check? All we really have is a collection of people who agree on something and according to the rules they set. If the largest majority agree then that becomes main stream science and the generally accepted view. That does not mean they are correct.

Stellar and Galaxy Red shifts when interpreted as a Doppler shift tell us that the universe is expanding. So there are no forces, not even gravity, capable of holding the universe together according to this view. If you don't believe Stellar and Galaxy Red shifts are Doppler shifts then you have to come up with a different theory, that makes sense when set against everything else.

Maybe the universe is not expanding maybe it just appears that way due to the way we interpret the data we have.

Let's take the wider view and look beyond our universe. It has been said that there are other universes but we have not yet seen them because the light has not reached us yet. If we would get to an edge then we could ask what is beyond that and so on and if we find when something started then we could ask well what came before that and so on.

So if we keep looking wider and wider to that in which 'everything' exists then we can ask ourselves how can this 'everything' exist and yet never have begun. That seems to me to be impossible based on our current understanding of things and yet seems possible by the fact we are here and exist in something. So for me it is quite possible and probable that our current understanding is incorrect. However, we are still here and have the opportunity to keep learning.

Regards.

Edited: 18 August 2013 at 12:03 AM by westonpa
 17 August 2013 04:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Originally posted by: kengreen
No, you are not alone in your query. I have spent (wasted?) Most of my spare time over some forty-five years in pursuit of an alternative and it does at least offer a creditable new look.


Could you point the readers of this forum to a publised paper you have written that provides a creditable, testable theory of a physical phenomena that is inadequately explained (or unexplained) at present?
 18 August 2013 06:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

There are several experiments pertaining to the nature of the photon. The three most important in the near infrared, visible and ultraviolet region are:

1. The Photoelectric Effect
2. Two Slit Experiment with photons
3. Photon splitting experiments like the Aspect experiment (quantum entanglement)

They are interconnected experimentally...although this is not normally emphasised in the usual theoretical explanations even at degree level physics.

If I start with (2) the two slit experiment.

Supposedly "photons" are emitted from the source, and can be observed with a photomultiplier to pass through only one of the slits at a time. After a long period of time a two slit diffraction pattern builds up in the measurement plane, rather than two one slit patterns. The photons appear to "know" about the other slit, and whether or not it is open or closed, and according to quantum mechanics orthodoxy this defies classical explanation.

The physics of the detector (the photomultiplier tube, utilising the photo electric effect) is not normally considered relevant. However I think it is very relevant.

If we consider the two slit experiment to give a classical interference pattern at even at very low light levels, with an instantaneously unmeasurable interference pattern existing at all times. Then if we leave a photomultiplier at a specific point in the interference pattern, or behind one of the slits, in my theory light energy very gradually integrates up, until enough energy has been received to emit a photon's worth of energy (E=hf)

The rate of production of these now measurable "photon" emmissions depends on where you site the detector in the instantaneously unobservable classical interference pattern.

Going back to (1) the Photoelectric effect. Once the energy has integrated up and a photon's worth of energy is emitted, this secondary emission can then accelerate an electron away from the metal to produce a "photelectric effect" electron emission. This electron emission can then be amplified in the photomultiplier tube to produce a "photon" observation.

If we are prepared to admit that visible light photons spread their energy out as if they were a classical em wave, and that photon abosorption effects are just secondary emission in disguise, then (3) the Aspect experiment and other quantum entanglement experiments can be easily understood classically as well.

The question is how do you prove that the photoelectric emission electron is emitted following a secondary emission of a photon's worth of energy?

Now as the electromagmetic frequency increases photon emissions mayeventually get to the stage where they no longer spread out classically (e.g. gamma rays), but I don't think this is the case for "photons" in the near infrared, visible light, and ultraviolet spectrum.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 19 August 2013 10:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Hello ALL
Today on Yahoo the third story is entitled "Mystery at heart of our galaxy" This discusses the pulsar PSR-J1745-2900 which is near Sagittarius A* at the heart of the local galaxy.
Their research at Max Planck Institute seems to confirm strong large magnetic fields in the region. These surely must be taken into account when trying to understand the balanced workings of our universe. We cant just ignore the electromagnetic effects!
New physics concepts are required to magnetize and electrolize the standard model as detailed in the magnoflux theory.
CliveS
 19 August 2013 05:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Clive,

The theories of cosmology are still extremely speculative and are subject to constant development. Its a very exciting subject in terms of interpreting new observational evidence right now. I attended a cosmology short course at the royal institution about two years ago and lots of brand new observational evidence on the nature of our galaxy and universe has rolled in since then. The super massive black hole at the centre of our galaxy is now "snacking" apparently, and this will hopefully soon generate a whole new range of observational evidence on the nature of black holes. Magnetic fields may play a part in this.

As you know measurements on the Cosmic Background Radiation lend support to the existance of cold dark matter (CDM). Galactic CDM halos are used to account for the long term stability of planar galaxies inspite of them having rotation curves that would otherwise cause them to fly apart on very short timescales.

(Galaxies where dark matter is found are unlike our solar system and globular star clusters, they are non-spherically symmetric in terms of gravitational forces. More cylinderically symmetric than spherically symmetric. For engineers this a pertinent fact worth discussing further)

The trouble with the dark matter theory for me is the role of angular momentum in it. When you ask a cosmologist how cold dark matter acquires angular momentum there is a deafening silence.

If you examine the big bang theory you will find that the universe is initially devoid of any angular momentum. Small density variations in the matter distribution allow matter to collapse in (generating linear momentum) to form the first stars and blackholes (assuming no magnetic fields). If is only when matter bounces off or is ejected at speed from these initial formations (super nova etc) and then collide with other material debris that the galactic angular momentum distributions we now observe can start to form.

Dark matter wiil collapse into the initial star and black hole formations linearly as well. It will bounce around without angular momentum in these initial gravity bottles. How does the initial linear harmonic motion of a particle trapped in a gravity bottle (so to speak) get converted into planar angular momentum if dark matter particles can't collide with anything else and thus spread some of their linear momentum to other things?

Dark matter particles are not affected by magnetic fields so adding magnetic fields to the model does not help give angular momentum to dark matter.

You could say that dark matter halos do not signify angular momentum. They just are a reflection of the fact that dark matter particles spend most of there time at the extremes of their harmonic motion, where they briefly come to a halt. Non spherically symmetric matter distributions would gradually deflect dark matter particles, I agree, but why should the majority of these orbits end up in the same plane as the real matter?

There are other theories of galaxy formation that do not need dark matter. e.g. John Moffat's Modified Gravity Theory (Modification of General Relativity)

The MOG theory is apparently too complex to be generally accepted. (Other theories too ad-hoc.) Well this as may be, the point is that it is an alternative theory, and if there is one alternative, consistent with the observational evidence in support of general relatiivity, then there may be other simpler ones (perhaps more radical from a qualitative point of view).

If you think that the evolution of the universe is highly dependent on how matter behaves in the dense centres of galaxies and stars then the effect of magnet forces (perhaps in separating ferrous dust from non ferrous for example) can be considered. This route may give us new effects to account for otherwise anomalous or weakly explained observations, but I am not sure it will give us good enough observational evidence for supporting and developing the new physics you seem to so urgently want.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 23 August 2013 12:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Hi James
The problem is that 24% dark matter does not really exist and has never been observed.
I looked up dark matter and found in the Wikipedias explanation this quote
"Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters."
There is no need to hypothesis anything; just accept that the observed equilibrium state can be produced by assuming there are electric fields acting across space which overall lead to an electromagnetic force of repulsion of between -20 to 22G between cosmic bodies. What you see is what you've got..
Physicists are still looking for the lost neutrinos, the Higgs boson and now dark matter in the depths of the earth! Why can't they just accept the obvious conclusion that there are electric fields in space which must be accounted for in their calculations.
CliveS

Edited: 23 August 2013 at 01:06 PM by acsinuk
 23 August 2013 02:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

"just accept that the observed equilibrium state can be produced by assuming there are electric fields acting across space which overall lead to an electromagnetic force of repulsion of between -20 to 22G between cosmic bodies. What you see is what you've got.. "




You can't "just accept" or "assmue" anything. You have to produce hypothesis (ie there exists electromagnetic force of repulsion of between -20 to 22G between cosmic bodies)

First define cosmic body...and why this does not seem to decrease with distance as forces are measured to do (inverse square). The repulsion cannot be the same between all bodies of all masses of all charges at all distances? If it is the same, it is not an electromagnetic force at all.


Then you have to produce a theory which describes this hypothesis and provides accurate predictions.

Then you have to measure these predictions and compare with the theory.


Unfortunately, "what you see is what you have got" although a common sense approach, is nearly always not the case.



It is obviously the case that the present models are not complete, otherwise every science lab could close tomorrow, and scientists could take up gardening. However, we live in a technological age which is testament to the remarkable accuracy of present models.

The solution is to provide a better model.

The web is full of armchair scientists bandying around the word "energy". They range from faith healers to garden-shed perpetual motion inventors and everything in between.



The only way any new model is going to be taken seriously is if it is self-consistent, explains observation, makes predictions and is consistent with experiment.


Obviously, the last part of the test - being consistent with experiment - is becoming extremely difficult, epsecially in particle physics where the energies required to test theory are currently beyond our technology (and it will be foolish to suggest that will always be the case).


So, for scientists here that have a hypothesis; get it down in writing, develop a theory and make some predictions. Otherwise, it is in the same bin as homeopathy and the perpetual motion machine.
 02 September 2013 12:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Zuiko
The cosmic bodies can be stars or their dependent planets, moons,asteroids gases or solar winds. As for the basic precepts of an electric magnoflux universe these are listed below:-
Firstly, there must be a common God given time throughout the universe
Secondly, the fundamental electric law requires that for a big bang creation from nothing, the amount of positive charge must exactly equal the amount of negative charge in the universe. This law of electrical balance applies to all electrical systems throughout the universe from galaxies to sun/planets systems right down to our domestic power supply system.
Thirdly, as all baryonic matter is enclosed in negative electron shells on planets and in space we can be sure that we are negatively charged. The stars and sun therefore must be composed of positively charged anti-matter; meaning their matter is enclosed in positron shells. The area of interaction is of course on the stars surface which is the real event horizon which we can never cross without being annihilated.

The WMAP results are I believe based on Ghz readings of emissions of starlight from throughout the universe so they can only measure the matter or rather the antimatter that glows. The other half of the universe is real dark matter which comprises of electron enclosed matter which is hidden although it can sometimes be sensed by stars wobbling. Why the WMAP interpreters would hypothesize that there is five times more dark matter than real baryonic matter is a complete mystery; particularly as the solar system has been assessed to have a sun that contains 98% of the total matter and antimatter in the solar system. This is surely a complete contradiction. We need some new physics to explain what is really going on!!
CliveS
 02 September 2013 04:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: acsinuk

As for the basic precepts of an electric magnoflux universe these are listed below:-

Firstly, there must be a common God given time throughout the universe


If there is such absolute time (universal and God given as Newton believed) then we now know that such a thing cannot ever be measured directly by humans.

Even if you define a good rest frame (the rest frame with respect to our local view of the Cosmic Background Radiation [CMBR] for example), there is no place in the universe where the gravitational potential does not vary with time, so you will have to correct any clock you build for this effect (as the rate of clocks varies slightly depending on the local gravitational potential).

If you apply a correction to your atomic clock, based on another measurement (the gravitational potential in this case), it undermines the statement that absolute time can be God given rather than just being a product of the human imagination together with the application of some basic maths.

In addition we can measure time by using an oscillator based clock local to our current physical frame of reference or alternatively integrate star light coming in from a completely different frame. This will produce opposing effects at the limit of experimental accuracy in respect to time measurement. Even if we choose to correct one to agree with the other or indeed calculate the mean of the two measurements - which mode of measurement and correction is preferred by God?

In your "electric magnoflux universe" you have embedded the notion of Newtonian absolute time. This has now been downgraded to the status of a useful engineering assumption with a limited range of applicability, and I agree with this, independent of the postulates and assumptions contained in the special or general relativity theories.



Secondly, the fundamental electric law requires that for a big bang creation from nothing, the amount of positive charge must exactly equal the amount of negative charge in the universe. This law of electrical balance applies to all electrical systems throughout the universe from galaxies to sun/planets systems right down to our domestic power supply system.



The Conservation of charge law.

But why and how does this law arise? Why not be braver and try and think about questions that current theories do not tackle?


Thirdly, as all baryonic matter is enclosed in negative electron shells on planets and in space we can be sure that we are negatively charged. The stars and sun therefore must be composed of positively charged anti-matter; meaning their matter is enclosed in positron shells. The area of interaction is of course on the stars surface which is the real event horizon which we can never cross without being annihilated.


When matter and anti-matter annihilate tell-tale gamma ray signatures result. Astronomers do not observe these signature signals, therefore it is concluded that the universe contains only matter now, with antimatter only being created in small amounts due to energetic particle collision events for example.

This is a problem for cosmologists, as in the big bang equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created as you know. Your theory is that this antimatter is still around, with some undisclosed mechanism keeping antimatter and matter rigorously separated I presume. Are there any observable consequences from such a theory? I can't think of any myself.


Why the WMAP interpreters would hypothesize that there is five times more dark matter than real baryonic matter is a complete mystery;


Its the way they interpret and model the angular fluctuations in the CMBR. John Moffat "Reinventing Gravity" tries to interpret the same evidence in a different way, without postulating the existence of dark matter. All this may be speculative and unconvincing to some, but it certainly not a complete mystery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter


We need some new physics to explain what is really going on!!


I agree, but in regard to different physics and for reasons as I outlined above. Coming up with new wide ranging physical models to explain nature is difficult and confusing especially if you start playing with and trying to explore the nature of our existing assumptions and postulates.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 03 September 2013 05:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Originally posted by: acsinuk
Firstly, there must be a common God given time throughout the universe


okay, this is where the debate is lost straight away
 04 September 2013 02:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

I think the conservation of charge law implies that the universe must remain electrically neutral (in aggregate) at all times during its evolution and growth (assuming that it started out electrically neutral).

Measurements from high energy particle colliders show that charge is rigorously conserved at all times independent of collision energy used. This gives some experimental support to the above view.

The problem then comes in determining why the large asymmetry forms between matter and anti-matter within the confines of the big bang model for the origin of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

None of the proposed solutions to this problem, in the article above, seem plausible to me because in order to keep the observable universe electrically neutral in aggregate at all times, the instantaneous rate of destruction (or separation and hiding) of anti-protons must be the same as the instantaneous rate of destruction (or separation and hiding) of anti-electrons.

One mechanism for rigorously maintaining the aggregate neutrality of the universe, whilst rigorously disposing of anti-protons and anti-electrons at the same instantaneous rate at all locations and all times, would be if anti-neutrons (created from anti-protons and anti-electrons) could in some proportion of their free particle decays, split into a proton and electron (as if a neutron decay had occurred).

This would obey the conservation of charge law, but such decays aren't allowed by the standard model of particle physics because baryon number is not conserved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron

I not sure it would be experimentally possible to create particles definitely known to be anti-neutrons (rather than neutrons) and then to hold them for long enough apart from ordinary matter (10 minutes I presume) to definitely observe their decays. Such a difficult experiment would be worth a nobel prize whatever the result found.



So in my opinion there are at least three ways the standard model (of particle physics) is wrong:

1. it gets the energy density of space wrong by many orders of magnitude
2. it can't yet account for imbalance of matter and anti-matter in the universe, whilst at the same time maintaining the neutrality of the universe in aggregate at all times during its evolution and growth.
3. it doesn't incorporate gravitational forces

The fact that the standard model does not predict the existence of dark matter is definitely in its favour in my opinion, although many cosmologists and particle physicists would disagree with me on this.

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 04 September 2013 03:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Thanks James
Yes, I think that the conservation of electric charge balance here on a planet is most important. But if the stars are made of antimatter then this would surely help in the overall balance of the universe as well!
Concerning the solar wind this is made mostly of + ionized hydrogen molecules which are moving DC wise towards us. Because of the necessity to always balance electrical systems this means there must be a flow of negative electrons in the opposite direction which I call the feedback return electrons which when they hit the sun release a mc^2 neutron of energy plus H+ ion back to us.
It occurs to me, that it would be convenient if the sun is nuclear fissioning helium rather than fusioning hydrogen.
Possibly some of our cosmologist friends could look at brown stars to check whether their helium to hydrogen ratios are as high as expected?
CliveS
 04 September 2013 07:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: acsinuk

"Yes, I think that the conservation of electric charge balance here on a planet is most important. But if the stars are made of antimatter then this would surely help in the overall balance of the universe as well!"



I don't think assuming that stars are made of antimatter helps maintain the overall charge balance of the universe.

protons and anti-protons are created together as a pair. Zero net change in charge. They are completely stable until they meet again and mutually annihilate. Zero net change in charge. Charge conservation law holds.

electron and positron creation and annihilation is the same. Charge conservation law holds.

neutron and anti-neutron creation and annihilation is the same. In addition these particles are unstable when out side of the nucleus. When they decay there is zero net change in charge. Charge conservation law holds.

I think when protons and anti-neutrons try to come together as nuclei (or indeed when anti-protons and neutrons come together) they mutually annihilate as well. Therefore stable mixed mode matter-antimatter atoms like this are not possible either. Charge conservation law holds.

Therefore however you put matter and anti-matter in close proximity you will always see the specific electromagnetic annihilation signatures.

Your qualitative theory therefore seems to predict electromagnetic annihilation signatures that are not observed. This would lead most people to conclude that it is unlikely to form a good foundation for a new physical theory.


"Concerning the solar wind this is made mostly of + ionized hydrogen molecules which are moving DC wise towards us."


I think the solar wind consists of particles being shot out from the sun with an initial speed roughly 10 times greater than the escape velocity. The maintain a roughly constant velocity out to the earths orbit and beyond because the speed is so much greater than the escape velocity.

I don't think the electrons and positive ions are being constantly accelerated in space in different directions as if they were moving in a large scale DC electric field as you describe.



"Because of the necessity to always balance electrical systems this means there must be a flow of negative electrons in the opposite direction which I call the feedback return electrons which when they hit the sun release a mc^2 neutron of energy plus H+ ion back to us."



No. If electrons were going in the opposite direction you would get twice the charge separation current. Electrons must leave the sun in the same numbers as the protons to maintain solar neutrality.

Electrons are much lighter than neutrons and at slow speeds cannot release a neutrons worth of Mc^2 energy plus H+ ion.

In any case this process would confilct with the conservation of charge law!


"It occurs to me, that it would be convenient if the sun is nuclear fissioning helium rather than fusioning hydrogen."


Fissioning helium is an endothermic nuclear reaction. Fusion of two hydrogen nuclei is an exothermic nuclear reaction. It doesn't make sense to replace an extremely exothermic reaction with an extremely endothermic reaction in your model, and still be able to account for the energy emission of the sun.


Possibly some of our cosmologist friends could look at brown stars to check whether their helium to hydrogen ratios are as high as expected?


I don't need to in this case, for the reason expressed above.

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 05 September 2013 02:19 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

I said above

"I think the solar wind consists of particles being shot out from the sun with an initial speed roughly 10 times greater than the escape velocity."

Sorry they are roughly the same order of magnitude...

The escape velocity from the sun is roughly 620 km/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

The solar wind has two components according to wikipedia, fast and slow; 750km/s and 400 km/s respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

Therefore the terminal solar wind speeds are of the same order of magnitude as the escape velocity.

Wolfram has a parker model demonstrator online for example, with some theoretical details of this particular model.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheSolarWind/

James Arathoon



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 06 September 2013 05:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Hi James
In new physics the electric and magnetic force effects need to be considered and never ignored.
In an electric universe there can be no neutral matter only seemingly neutral matter, because if the outside enclosure is at the same potential as the inner charge you can touch it without a shock. This means that neutrons are really negatrons enclosed in a negative electron shell. Anti-neutrons would need to be protons enclosed in a positron shell. At creation you want to force the negative matter outwards and keep the antimatter inside. If they ever meet they would annihilate with remaining spin energy signature emitted as a photon. The law of conservation of charge is then doubly confirmed.
The solar wind is comprised of ionised H+ which means there is a voltage in space pulling the ion forward. Particle physicists are again ignoring the voltage effects and trying to make old Newtonian constant velocity physics fit.
CliveS
 07 September 2013 08:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

I mentioned reinventing the electron near the top of the thread.

If you look at Robert Brady's (working with Ross Anderson) site at Cambridge University Computer Laboratory he tries to mathematically describe the analogue of the electron in an ideal compressible fluid (no viscosity) See the video's of his talk at Warrick University.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rmb4/sonons/sonons.html


In the late 19th century and early 20th century work on modeling the electron using fluid dymical models (anchor ring / vortex ring models of the electron), I think they almost always worked on ideal incompressible fluids in their hydrodymamical models.

One of the predictions from Robert Brady's hydrodymamical analogy between classical physics and quantum physics is that quantum computers of more that 3 (or at most 4 dependent on geometry) qubits are unlikely because of the difficulty of maintaining phase coherence. This would help explain why despite the huge resources put into quantum computers no one can build one more than 3 qubits in size (good for factorizing prime products up to 15)

I have played mathematically with the ideal compressible fluid in static form (not entirely satisfactorily) and you can easily create simple analogues for gravity and electostatic forces, but not magnetic or inertial forces which require motion of the fluid. Robert Brady is perhaps trying to attribute two much to motion and over interpreting his model. Very interesting though nevertheless.

James Arathoon




-------------------------
James Arathoon
IET » Energy » New Physics

1 2 3 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.