Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: acsinuk on 12/08/2013 16:47:13
-
Yahoo have just issued this story of a new physics universe on its news page today:-
"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."
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.
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
-
Please post a link to the source of your quote.
Wikipedia still defines a photon as a fundamental particle. What nonsense is this??
Why do you think it’s nonsense? And why would you assume that Wikipedia is a reliable source of the best description of physics? By “fundamental” it is meant that photons are not composed of other particles. And by “particle” it is meant that it behaves in some ways like a particle. However it also behaves in some ways like a wave. That’s what the wave-particle duality is all about.
Any energy pulse wave that moves at the speed of light, cannot contain matter but is comprised of 100% 3D electromagnetic flux.
That depends on how one defines the term “matter.” Einstein defined it so as to include fields and as such an electromagnetic field is composed of matter. Don’t confuse the term with what you may normally think of as being matter though.
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
Nobody is ignoring anything.
-
Hi Pmb
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.
CliveS
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/08/14/the-strong-magnetic-field-around-our-galaxys-black-hole/#.Ug1hf22ThGm
Could this be relevant to some parts of this discussion?
-
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.
Ah, but it is. Imagine a small mass m travelling through space. It will move in a straight line unless deviated by some force. Now introduce a much larger mass M. Unless m is travelling directly towards M, it will follow a curved path towards M, and the conservation of angular momentum will ensure that the pair will rotate about their center of mass at an increasing rate until m crashes into M.
So if stars or planets form by accretion, they will spin.
-
Hello ALL
Today Monday 19th August Yahoos 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
-
Today Monday 19th August Yahoos 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!
No, indeed - and they're not being ignored. In fact, The black hole (Sagittarius A*) is expected to have strong magnetic fields around it; astronomers are excited by this discovery because this new magnetar/pulsar will allow the strength of those fields to be calculated.
-
Hi DeLordE
I am thrilled that the search for the truth is still on.
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
-
... Why can’t they just accept the obvious conclusion that there are electric fields in space which must be accounted for in their calculations.
Presumably because that hypothesis doesn't match either observation or calculation. If it did, they'd be using it. As I understand it, the current best candidate is a very weakly interacting particle (less interacting even than neutrinos), which they're currently looking for.
If you can make an electric field hypothesis work within the current framework and observational evidence, send them your model and calculations. If it really works, you'll be famous.
-
Alan, I thought Einstein supersedes Newton on the subject of gravity. So can objects in orbit have a true rotational energy when Force is not involved?
Dlorde, it seems every time a new particle is needed then one is found, but there are plenty from space but they don’t seem to fit.
Acsinuk, you ask for new physics, so, let me try to help by asking a very basic question; what does E=mc2 mean - not what it does, but what are the implications of the equation?
The equation, of course, defines the energy in mass, but is mass fundamentally different from energy, or does it mean mass is fundamentally the same as energy?
Does it mean, for example, that an atom is mostly empty space with an undefined amount of something different, or does it mean that an atom is all empty space with no possibility of anything being different.
The equation would seem to imply the latter but today’s physics seems content with the former answer.
If the latter answer is a correct interpretation then perhaps there is more to discuss.
What does the forum think?
-
... Dlorde, it seems every time a new particle is needed then one is found, but there are plenty from space but they don’t seem to fit.
It's possible they've already been detected, see Lighter Than We thought? (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/07/25/are-dark-matter-particles-lighter-than-we-thought/) and May Have Been Detected (http://www.universetoday.com/101464/researchers-may-have-finally-detected-a-dark-matter-particle/). But only time will tell.
-
Bracewell is correct we need to discuss all our options dlordE
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
-
Alan, I thought Einstein supersedes Newton on the subject of gravity. So can objects in orbit have a true rotational energy when Force is not involved?
Angular momentum is conserved in all useful models of the universe. Whether you model gravitation as a point-to-point force, exchange of gravitons, or curvature of spacetime, Sigma (mr2w) is constant.
-
Firstly, there must be a common God given time throughout the universe
What's a 'common God', and why should we give it time throughout the universe? What does that even mean?
Even a 'common good' wouldn't make sense in this context...
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.
Ah, no. In general, the electrons and the positrons balance out.
The stars and sun therefore must be composed of positively charged anti-matter; meaning their matter is enclosed in positron shells.
Nope.
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.
No, the CMB is radiation from just after the recombination, when neutral hydrogen atoms first formed and the universe went from opaque to transparent to light. This was before the first stars formed.
Why the WMAP interpreters would hypothesize that there is five times more dark matter than real baryonic matter is a complete mystery;
You can find explanations here: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/).
-
OK, I am going to assume there is no objection to the idea that an atom is always empty, but the weasel word ‘empty’ needs explaining.
Conventionally, the atom is a construction of particles with a nucleus. This has been confirmed by experiments that, basically, bombard the atom with particles which are deflected. A mass is then inferred for the structure, which is then considered as not being entirely empty.
There could be an alternative construction that behaves exactly the same under bombardment and yet is entirely empty. As there is really no other practical choice, this construction would have to be based on wave energy, which is well known; or is it?
I want you to go and get a golf ball and look at it. You will see it has surface dimples. Now try hard and imagine these dimples as being a wave, which as the amplitude increases, the wave interacts at the centre. You are most certainly aware that when a wave interacts with another wave then the amplitudes are additional and that a wave loses energy by the reduction of amplitude; frequency is not affected.
So, this wave you have imagined interacts in amplitude with itself and becomes a stable structure because it cannot lose energy.
So, ignoring for the moment a practical circumstance that would create such a wave, just how complex could such a wave become?
As frequency is not affected then there is the possibility for further complexity by the addition of compatible frequencies until some practical limit is reached. Incompatible frequencies might simply be ejected, even under bombardment, but heavy bombardment with a critical frequency might cause the wave to break with the release of massive amounts of energy.
So, to sum up, what is proposed here for new physics is an atom made of waves, with, however, no nucleus but just a point of maximum interference at the centre. Particles would just be small versions of the same thing, but because they are so simple and contain little energy they would need little encouragement to migrate between wave and particle states. The theory of Entropy would suggest that this must be so.
Have fun and feel free to comment.
-
Have fun and feel free to comment.
I'm not sure I see how your 'new physics' is different from the QM view of particles as waves (wavicles)... care to outline the differences? (note, I'm not a physicist, just an interested lay person).
-
Dlorde, you are quite right, the model suggested should, in most cases, lead to the same thing mathematically. There is no conventional nucleus, however, so there is no need to have a special force to hold a nucleus together, which is a big change. The model is a homogeneous wave structure that may eject energy in the form of a particle but there is no question of particles inside either in fact or in some ethereal dual existence.
I hope this helps.
-
There is no conventional nucleus, however, so there is no need to have a special force to hold a nucleus together, which is a big change.
Oh, I see; so there's an electron cloud around something that behaves just like a nucleus containing the various numbers of neutrons and protons that determine the atom's properties, and the nuclear force holding them together - you can collide these nucleus-like waves to produce new elements and by-products that behave just as if you'd collided the appropriate conventional nucleii together; you can fire particles at them, and they appear to break up just like the conventional nucleus model, and everything about their behaviour appears identical, right down to the quarks and radioactive decay - except that it's different because... you think it would be cool?
OK; so what's the point, and where's the mathematical model that so cunningly replaces everything in the nucleus with something that behaves identically but is somehow made of something completely different to the perfectly adequate model we use at present?
I keep wondering how it's much different from asserting that car engines are actually made of cheese, but special sorts of cheese that have identical properties to steel and aluminium and ceramic, etc.
-
I forgot to mention that I believe the standard model of the atom is arbitrary in that there is no logical starting point or an end point. Each step has been arrived at by careful experiment and measurement but there is no reason for any of it. It begs the question; why should there be a periodic table at all and why this one?
The version I suggest is about constructions of atoms based on compatible wave frequencies that are centred on an intense point of interference. There could not be an infinite number of permanent structures but I have no idea how to work out the structures that are possible.
Another anomaly with the standard model is the lack of recognition that a mass affects the fabric of Time and Space. At what point should this be recognised? When the mass is small, say one particle or one atom then the effect is ridiculously small and is not detectable so it is ignored, but should it? What is it about an atom that eventually builds to a significant effect and eventually to an overwhelming effect? At the moment all that can be claimed is that the presence of a mass has an effect but in making this claim there seems a loss of the thread of cause and effect. Assembling atoms as if they were some kind of exotic Lego kit does not seem too promising either. However, the idea I am suggesting has at its heart an intense point of interference, which is, perhaps, a Time and Space warping interference.
This thread started with an appeal for new physics and I understood the writer to mean something fresh and not just an update on the same old stuff.
Dlorde seems upset by what I have written and seems to take it far too seriously. The analogy on cheese is just so much over the top but it could just as easily be applied to the model that is so rightly defended with vigour.
Have fun and feel free to comment.
-
Dlorde seems upset by what I have written and seems to take it far too seriously. The analogy on cheese is just so much over the top but it could just as easily be applied to the model that is so rightly defended with vigour.
I'm not upset by it, I'm intrigued by what the point of it is. If it's not to be taken so seriously, then what? just drive-by surreality?
-
Hi both
We need new physics to explain the stability of the universe. The standard model has failed spectacularly as WMAP has shown by only finding 4.5% of the required matter and a repulsive force 22.2 times stronger pushing the stars apart.
The reason why it will not balance is because the electric field forces have been totally ignored! Imagine if you were to magnetize the universe with north pole at top. Then all the stars would face upwards and repel each other. WMAP have identified that magnetic force which is 22.2 times more powerful than gravity.
Further, if all planets and other star rotating materials are attracted to their own star by a similar 22.2G force then we begin to be able to balance the cosmos. We need new physics with open minds to 3D electromagnetic effects
CliveS
-
WMAP have identified that magnetic force which is 22.2 times more powerful than gravity.
Really? normally the electomagnetic force is 1036 times stronger than gravity... although it does fall off much faster with distance.
-
dlorde,
That figure is for inside molecules! I am interested in the new physics of the macro universe where pretending that magnetic forces are irrelevant is causing cosmologists problems
CliveS
-
dlorde,
That figure is for inside molecules!
Inside and outside. It's a direct comparison between the two, regardless of context. Gravity is the weakest of all the forces by many orders of magnitude.
I am interested in the new physics of the macro universe where pretending that magnetic forces are irrelevant is causing cosmologists problems
It that case, I'm sure you'll be keen to make sure you get the physics correct.
-
I agree that gravity is an attractive force of 1G that gentle pulls matter and antimatter together. But it is not the only force out in space.
Inside molecules you are correct that there is a strong short range force of 10^25G which allows same charge protons to compress together by overcoming their electrostatic repulsion of 10^38G if they are nearer that 10^-15 metres, thus the conservation of charge law will hold true if the electrons [and their associated neutrons] are balanced inside the molecule.
But what of the external balance of charge across space? How are we to balance that? If the stars are made of antimatter then this would surely help in the overall balance of the universe.
The evidence is 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. Physicists have found both in space but seem to believe the electrons are moving towards us rather than away. New physics is needed.
CliveS
-
For the latest post visit
http://magnoflux3d.wordpress.com/