[Bored chemist]

Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).

Human brains need sugar to function...

[evan_au]

(Dark Matter cosmology) cannot tell us if there is a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".

This topic has been split off to a different thread in "New Theories": "Could Dark Matter particles form a "Dark Planet"?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76359.0

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.

What are "dark quarks"? Something you made up?

Yes i made dark quarks up. A quark is a confined photon.  A dark quark is a confined neutrino. A neutrino is a dark photon (a dark pair of photons actually).

If neutrons were held together by gravitation, then it would be possible to split them into their individual components. Yet you can't. That's the phenomenon of quark confinement.

I think i read that neutrons are made of three quarks. And dark neutrons might be made of three dark quarks. If quarks aggregate due to gravity then dark quarks might aggregate due to gravity.  The issue then is that ordinary Newtonian gravity cant provide much attraction, but i have addressed that elsewhere, i forget where.

And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.

That makes no sense. How is a particle supposed to be capable of hiding its charge? If it has charge, then it must have an electric field associated with it.

Williamson explains how. As the confined photon goes round & round in its loop it only ever emits the positive half or the negative half of its charge field. The half that is emitted inwards must annihilate or something.
All particles have charge, but not all particles have nett charge. For instance a free photon (a quasi-particle) has no nett charge, but it emits both positive charge & negative charge all the time, but both cancel (at least they both cancel in their effect in the cases of the sorts of things we usually look at).

[Kryptid]

A quark is a confined photon.

That too would violate conservation of electric charge.

If quarks aggregate due to gravity

They don't.

Williamson explains how. As the confined photon goes round & round in its loop it only ever emits the positive half or the negative half of its charge field.

That won't work because electric fields extend in all directions at once.

The half that is emitted inwards must annihilate or something.

And thus violate conservation of electric charge as charge cannot be destroyed.

All particles have charge

If that was true, then all particles would interact via the electromagnetic force. Some don't (neutrinos, for example). So not all particles have charge.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Dark quarks? You can't just join up disparate words and phrases and hope something scientific pops out. There are some decent books on particle physics if you really want to know what you are talking about. I doubt if you do. That means applying yourself and actually doing some study. Don't you have any gardening to do?

I think that i invented dark quarks, ie quarks made from neutrinos (which are dark photons). I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model, not enough time, & far too many rubbish particles (about half of them), & u have to wade throo all of that krapp re virtual particles etc, but of course there is good stuff in there too.

[Kryptid]

I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model

That would explain a lot.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).

Human brains need sugar to function...

Brains need cholesterol especially. I have sardines for lunch.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

A quark is a confined photon.

That too would violate conservation of electric charge.
How so.  The confined photon goes around in a loop such that all or most of the negative or positive charge goes in or out thusly giving a nett charge of zero or the full amount or something in between.

If quarks aggregate due to gravity

They don't.
In another thread i mention how gravity at a micro level might be affected by the centrifuging of aether.

Williamson explains how. As the confined photon goes round & round in its loop it only ever emits the positive half or the negative half of its charge field.

That won't work because electric fields extend in all directions at once.
J G Williamson doesnt think so.

The half that is emitted inwards must annihilate or something.

And thus violate conservation of electric charge as charge cannot be destroyed.
My theory says that charge is the excitation of photaenos that radiate out from the central body of every photon. Inside a loop the inwards photaenos meet head-on, & annihilate, leaving nothing (or leaving non-excited aether).

All particles have charge

If that was true, then all particles would interact via the electromagnetic force. Some don't (neutrinos, for example). So not all particles have charge.
No, u are talking about nett charge.  There is a difference between having no photaenos (ie zero charge) & having photaenos that cancel (ie zero nett charge).

[mad aetherist (OP)]

have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again

I keep telling you to learn some science. Here's another thing you probably didn't think about. The redefinition of the Kg was fairly widely reported. They plan to replace the prototype  lump of metal with a definition in terms of Planck's constant.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.02473.pdf

One aspect of that redefinition is that you need to measure g (and the rate at which it changes with height) to about a part in a billion.
https://www.nist.gov/publications/determination-local-acceleration-gravity-nist-4-watt-balance

And yet, you are claiming that the people who really know about measuring stuff have decided to do away with a physical standard in favour of something they can't measure. That's clearly nonsense.

The new definitions might have some benefits, & much money will now be made by the manufacturers of the needed new equipment. 
But the new definitions are fraught, what with being circular, & what with being based on Einsteinian ideas, together with ignoring Einsteinian ideas.
The accuracy is bound to be affected by the aetherwind giving anisotropy of the speed of light, & affecting big G (due to the aetherwind caused by the centrifuging of aether by the spinning Earth)(& by the orbiting Earth).

[mad aetherist (OP)]

It can be simple.  I reckon that what we have is two kinds of matter, (1) matter made by photons & (2) dark matter made by neutrinos (dark photons)(two joined photons).  An elementary particle is made when a free photon bites its tail & becomes a confined photon.  Likewise an elementary dark particle might be made by a neutrino becoming a confined neutrino.

The first problem is that a dark electron might not have any charge.  Likewise a dark proton.  If so then all dark elementary particles would mimic neutrons, & they might have praps twice the mass of their non-dark sibling.  Hencely we would not have any dark electrons orbiting a dark nucleus, we would just have a small nucleus. 
We would not have dark atoms or dark molecules.  We would have neutron particles, neutron planets, neutron stars.  All with much the same densities, ie very dense.  And all would be a kind of blackhole. 

A free neutrino probly has twice the mass (or quasi-mass) of a free photon.  A neutrino is invisible to the human eye, hencely dark.

Dark particles would form larger DPs by virtue of gravity.  Radiating away excess heat would not be a problem.  Dark particles would of course radiate electric fields which would of course cancel giving a nett charge of zero.  But electric charge radiation does not require energy, or at least it does not carry energy (but can in some instances).  This applies to all electric radiation whether cancelling or not.  Heat would be radiated away in the same way as for non-dark matter, via the emission of hi energy photons or neutrinos. 

Dark matter would aggregate with non-dark matter.  But here we have a problem.  Would dark particles migrate to the nucleus of an atom?  This would in effect create an isotope, & might cause fission. 
I think that most dark particles would soon make their way to the center of mass of any large body.  I think that Earth has dark matter inside, likewise the Moon & the Sun.

Dark matter can orbit the Sun etc, but i dont see how DM (eg a dark clump) can orbit inside ordinary matter (eg Earth), the DM would meet a lot of resistance.

I dont see the need for an exotic attraction force for DM, gravity would be enough.  Or, yes it would need an exotic force, but that force would be due to centrifuging of aether, due to the spins of the dark elementary particles (spinning at say c kmps).  This is a faux-gravity if u like.

[Bored chemist]

But the new definitions are fraught, what with being circular,

No
If you think they are circular, you have not understood them.

I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model, not enough time, & far too many rubbish particles (about half of them), & u have to wade throo all of that krapp re virtual particles etc, but of course there is good stuff in there too.

If you are not prepare to learn, why are you here?
You are clearly not in  a position to teach, because you don't know.

[Bored chemist]

It can be simple.  I reckon that what we have is two kinds of matter, (1) matter made by photons & (2) dark matter made by neutrinos (dark photons)(two joined photons). 

That would be simple.
It would also not be possible because it would (once again) violate charge conservation.

[Kryptid]

Having not heard of J.G. Williamson before, I did some research. Is this the person you are referring to? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Williamson5

I thought he might have been some kind of crank at first, but he does seem to have some good credentials. So I looked up the paper you were likely referring to: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

I haven't read the entire thing, but it doesn't seem to suggest that photons have both positive and negative charge at the same time. Instead, it seems to suggest that electric charge is an emergent property of the inherent electric and magnetic fields of confined photons. Although I said that such an idea would violate conservation of charge initially, it could potentially avoid that problem if such confined photons are incapable of spontaneously breaking confinement or if free photons are unable to spontaneously acquire confinement.

It is admittedly an interesting model, but something that radical needs some kind of experimentation to support it. Does the toroidal photon model make unique, testable predictions? I'd also like to know what other experts in the field of particle physics think about its plausibility. They would know better than I do.

Oh, but one potential issue does arise from the fact that electron-positron pairs something annihilate to release three photons instead of two. That would seem to be a problem if the argument is that electrons and positrons are made of one photon each because one photon per electron/positron is released. If there is a third photon involved, the annihilation can't represent something so simple as photons breaking confinement.

He also seems uncertain about the force required to confine the photon.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Having not heard of J.G. Williamson before, I did some research. Is this the person you are referring to? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Williamson5

I thought he might have been some kind of crank at first, but he does seem to have some good credentials. So I looked up the paper you were likely referring to: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

I haven't read the entire thing, but it doesn't seem to suggest that photons have both positive and negative charge at the same time. Instead, it seems to suggest that electric charge is an emergent property of the inherent electric and magnetic fields of confined photons. Although I said that such an idea would violate conservation of charge initially, it could potentially avoid that problem if such confined photons are incapable of spontaneously breaking confinement or if free photons are unable to spontaneously acquire confinement.

It is admittedly an interesting model, but something that radical needs some kind of experimentation to support it. Does the toroidal photon model make unique, testable predictions? I'd also like to know what other experts in the field of particle physics think about its plausibility. They would know better than I do.

Oh, but one potential issue does arise from the fact that electron-positron pairs something annihilate to release three photons instead of two. That would seem to be a problem if the argument is that electrons and positrons are made of one photon each because one photon per electron/positron is released. If there is a third photon involved, the annihilation can't represent something so simple as photons breaking confinement.

He also seems uncertain about the force required to confine the photon.

Yes new ideas open up more difficult questions.  But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas. If u a scientist has read JGWs stuff then u are now more knowledgeable re his ideas than i could ever be (plus i havent read his stuff for yonks). Miles Mathis has mixed feelings re JGWs stuff.

Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.
A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.
On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?
The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.
Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.   

Re getting 3 photons from 2 (ie from an electron positron annihilation), that is interesting.  One thing that i can think of is that a confined photon can break in two to give two free photons.  If free photons can have a large range of energies then a hi energy confined photon or a hi energy free photon might divide to make 2 or even more lo energy photons. Would that work?

[Kryptid]

But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.

A hypothesis being the only existing explanation for a given phenomenon is not evidence that said hypothesis is correct or even good.

Re getting 3 photons from 2 (ie from an electron positron annihilation), that is interesting.  One thing that i can think of is that a confined photon can break in two to give two free photons.  If free photons can have a large range of energies then a hi energy confined photon or a hi energy free photon might divide to make 2 or even more lo energy photons. Would that work?

If that was what was happening, you would expect the two photons resulting from the split to have half the energy of the photon that did not split. In the actual decay, all three photons have the same energy.

[jeffreyH]

  Incorporating the word mad in your handle appears to be due to some quite accurate self assesment. You appear to be quite an astute observer of your own limitations. It is a pity this doesn't carry over into your attempts at science.

[Bored chemist]

But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.

You refer to "this field"  which seems to be trying to explain the apparent changes in G on a (sidereal) daily basis reported in the paper you cite.

But that paper lacks any decent error analysis.
In particular, it doesn't explain how circadian effects- the temperature would be the biggest would affect teh reading.

Without that there is no real evidence of an effect.
So, making  up stories about photons disappearing up their own backsides to explain the effect is absurd.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.

You refer to "this field"  which seems to be trying to explain the apparent changes in G on a (sidereal) daily basis reported in the paper you cite.
But that paper lacks any decent error analysis. In particular, it doesn't explain how circadian effects- the temperature would be the biggest would affect teh reading. Without that there is no real evidence of an effect.
So, making  up stories about photons disappearing up their own backsides to explain the effect is absurd.

Papers i read say that the various values for G found by different teams differ by a factor of 10 times the calculated error & one paper says 40 times i think.

Re that russian paper i am fairly certain that they did a good instrument precision analysis.

Re temp effects, i had a look throo a number of papers & no-one has bothered to mention temp, but i guess that they control temp, most tests seem to be in vacuum chambers. 

The problem (as for all of science) as usual is that it is impossible to do an assessment of possible error of the whole underlying theory (here the big G theory), u dont know what u dont know (here mainly the effect of the varying daily etc aetherwind affecting length & ticking)(including the effect of orientation in relation to the wind).

Some papers devote much wordage to the analysis of seismic effects on their pendulums & torsion balances etc.  Which reminds me that because the aetherwind blowing throo Earth is 20 deg off Earth's axis then Earth's spin must create a pulsation of Earth's shape due to the daily change of length contraction due to the changing wind at any one location.  For example at Obninsk  the horizontal component of the aetherwind varys tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps daily.
I calculate that a 300 kmps aetherwind changes Earth's 12,742,000,000 mm diameter by 6,380 mm. And a 200 kmps wind gives 2,835 mm. A difference of 3,544 mm.  Thats the possible size of the pulsation of the diameter during 24 hrs.
In addition that pulsation will have some kind of harmonic vibration, due to the speed of sound or something in Earth.  That harmonic might magnify that there 3,544 mm.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Incorporating the word mad in your handle appears to be due to some quite accurate self assesment. You appear to be quite an astute observer of your own limitations. It is a pity this doesn't carry over into your attempts at science.

Dont forget that mad also means annoyed, or excited,  or wildly desirous to do something.
I should have picked atheist aetherist.  That looks classy.

[Bored chemist]

Re that russian paper i am fairly certain that they did a good instrument precision analysis.

Do you mean this paper?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf
which you refered to?
It still doesn't have an error analysis.

Do you know what an error analysis actually looks like?