Who's on first? (Abbot & Costello)
There is at present no experimental data that supports the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron, and an electron type neutrino, if that's what you imply. Group theory which led to the quark model of matter, and clearly delineates the families of mesons and baryons, with all their attendant properties, indicates that the difference between a proton and a neutron involves the flipping of a quark from up to down....fairly simple to envision and quite elegant physically. Confining an electron to the nucleus requires large energies....see:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../uncer.html#c3
note well that the energy to bind the electron in the nucleus exceeds the observed energies of typical nuclear reactions by about a factor of 1000.
T. G Zlosnik, P. G Ferreira, and G. D. Starkman, "Modifying gravity with the aether: An alternative to dark matter", Phys. Rev. D 75, 044017 (2007)
T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, " Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame", Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001)
Maybe you should drop the conspiracy theory.
Are you implying that you anticipate there will be such data? If so, that would make my theory a valid prediction, would it not? I don't know what you mean by "electron type neutrino." Neutrinos are merely blobs of primary angular momentum.There is at present no experimental data that supports the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron, and an electron type neutrino, if that's what you imply.
What does quark theory have to do with reality? Nobody has every made a proton or neutron out of a bunch of colored and strange quarks, some of which are supposed to be up and down. As far as quark theory goes, if you add the angular momenta of the various quarks, you still don't get the angular momentum of a proton or neutron. So your argument that electron and proton angular momentum do not add up to the angular momentum of a neutron has not been satisfied with quark theory, either.Group theory which led to the quark model of matter, and clearly delineates the families of mesons and baryons, with all their attendant properties,
The only evidence for quarks are streaks of light on photographic film. The cause of the streaks of light disappears after 10^-12 seconds and is never seen again. It is hardly scientific to "envision" particles that only exist for 10^-12 seconds to produce an entire Universe of protons, which exist for billions of years and have no discernible half life.indicates that the difference between a proton and a neutron involves the flipping of a quark from up to down....fairly simple to envision and quite elegant physically.
That is merely conjecture and is based on the assumption that the electron would be a free particle inside the nucleus. My theory does not predict the electron could exist as a free particle within the nucleus. The Aether Physics Model specifically provides a different physics involving binding due to the strong force, and which accounts for the effects of the Aether. Modern theory discounts the Aether out of hand, and therefore cannot account for the ability of the Aether to fold over upon itself.Confining an electron to the nucleus requires large energies....
Note that I have provided a logical and empirically based restructuring of the foundations of physics. You cannot use the Standard Model to judge the Aether Physics Model by, since the Standard Model is based upon the errors the Aether Physics Model corrects. It is well established within the physics community that the Standard Model is seriously flawed and everybody expects it will be replaced someday. My claim is that I have provided that replacement.note well that the energy to bind the electron in the nucleus exceeds the observed energies of typical nuclear reactions by about a factor of 1000.
Instead of trying to adhere to the flaws of the Standard Model while evaluating a completely reworked paradigm, try understanding the new paradigm I have provided and see if it is self-consistent and capable of replacing the Standard Model.
As for whether or not beta decay has been observed to be a binding of an electron and proton, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory describes it that way:
Can we just stick to the topic? volantis, I've read several papers and abstracts from arXiv about aether theory, and skipped reading many more.
papageno, saying that volantis is working on a conspiracy theory derails the conversation... no warnings, but please stick to the topic.
Forming opinions as we speak
[QUOTE=volantis;1255847]Did you think I wouldn't look? There is no such quote on that page.
SNIPPET. Dave. Your web page. Chapter 8 summary. Paragraph 6...here it comes..."In the Aether Physics Model, the neutron is a composite of a proton and electron".
Your writing, not mine, the first sentence in the paragraph. Does that not state that the "neutron is a composite of a proton and an electron?"
It is also not regarded as a trinity composite of those two plus the electron-type antineutrino...(a conceptual error I once held to). Neutron decay involves the creation of an electron and simultaneously the electron type antineutrino, as a W - particle decays. The W itself is created when the down quark flips to up. So the sequence is....quark flip, making neutron into proton.....short journey for massive W-...W decay to two leptons (the electron and antineutrino).
Who's on second? pete
The quote you took from his page wasI think that is what he is refering to.Thus, all nuclear reactions give up more energy than what goes into the reaction
Originally Posted by trinitree88 - Dave's Aether' ....Thus, all nuclear reactions give up more energy than what goes into the reaction.
We can explore this second concept if you wish, but let's first finish the first point of disagreement. Do you agree you were paraphrasing me, and not quoting me?Neutron decay involves the creation of an electron and simultaneously the electron type antineutrino, as a W - particle decays. The W itself is created when the down quark flips to up. So the sequence is....quark flip, making neutron into proton.....short journey for massive W-...W decay to two leptons (the electron and antineutrino).
As usual, my theory is not proved wrong, it is merely sidestepped because the mainstream is happy with what they have. The bar is set at convincing the experts, not at successful experiments with valid physics. Utlimately, and speaking from direct experience, it comes down to prejudiced and unwarranted views against the Aether.Dear Mr. Thomson,
All research proposals submitted to Gravitational Physics are evaluated by a panel of experts. These experts, primarily university physics faculty, consider the importance and feasibility of the proposed activities.
From time to time, we receive proposals to pursue research on new frameworks for physics. They tend to review poorly because the proposers do not convince the experts that the new frameworks are both consistent with known experimental and observational results and present an advantage over the existing framework. The strength of the current framework is the coherence it provides to understanding a huge body of experiments and observations as well as having had the power to predict many of the results of these before their discovery. While open questions remain and motivate ongoing research, the success of the current framework presents a very high bar for any proposed new paradigms.
Please note that proposals submitted to the Gravitational Physics Program should arrive at NSF on or shortly before the Physics Division target date of September 24, 2008.
(National Science Foundation)
Already, we are seeing the same mechanics in this thread. Not one person is engaging me on the presentation of the Aether Physics Model. Either people are saying, "I'm happy with the mainstream, no need for an Aether theory," or they are completely ignoring the successes of the Aether Physics Model and diverting attention toward meaningless distractions.
If I can't get a fair hearing with the folks here, why should anyone expect the "experts" with the NSF to be any better? I had a discussion with one of the "experts" who likely consults for NSF. The complete discussion is available online at:
There is no conspiracy in speaking facts. You folks claim to be scientific and fair. I haven't seen any such indications, as of yet.
and the other from the Ch 8 summary. We are not allowed to quote entire pages here, so if volantis has an issue with a partial quote, ...that's life. Both statements are untrue, physically.
The reasoning is ...at least some nuclear reactions are endothermic, hence cannot "give up more energy than what goes into the reaction"..., and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids electrons from being confined to the nucleus. If he wants to dispute HUP ...well that's where Einstein made an international fool of himself before finally relenting to Bohr in the thirties at the Solvay Conferences.
To his credit, Einstein moved on. The physical intuition of Heisenberg is correct, and all humans have an imperfect sort of knowledge, but it's close enough for a baseball hitter to hit 340 with 40 HR's and 100 RBI's.
Volantis. Batter up. I may have missed a word, but did not misinterpret what you wrote. Don't take my comments too personally. The issue here is this:
1. You should be able to defend with data the position that all nuclear reactions are exothermic...give up more energy than goes into them....our mainstream point of view is that energy is produced by fusing light nuclei or fissioning massive ones but not vice versa . A valid defense would show a nuclear reaction...say fissioning of beryllium, or fusing of uranium to be exothermic. That'd be a hot topic in physics.
2. You should also be able to defend studies that show the neutron to be formed inverse style from pure protium shielded from cosmic ray showers...(possible initiators of an otherwise endothermic reaction) The cross-sections for underground neutrinos to do this is low.
If you can do that...people will notice. I got plenty of flak from plenty of people when I first posted here, but as the data keeps trickling in, the swells have subsided some.....and I take plenty of chances, risking big on new ideas, and putting my money where my mouth is regularly. I'll bet a hot fudge sundae that you won't be able to find any evidence for exothermic fission of beryllium.....and if Alnitak doesn't go supernova in the near future, I think I owe Antoniseb one. Cheers. pete.
Last edited by trinitree88; 2008-Jun-05 at 06:28 PM.
The phrase "nuclear reaction," like many other terms and phrases in physics, has multiple meanings and subtleties. A "nuclear reaction" could be a type of reaction: fusion, fission, or binding-unbinding of the neutron. A "nuclear reaction" could refer to a specific reaction such as the U235 fission reaction, the Li7 fusion reaction, or the neutron beta decay.The pattern of binding takes the exact form identified by Linus Pauling in his Spheron Model of atomic structure. In either the fusion or the fission reactions, the dynamic Aether units move and thus the force between the atoms moves. The Gforce within the Aether units is the source of the “binding energy” when atomic nuclei change structure. Thus, all nuclear reactions give up more energy than what goes into the reaction.
Fission reactors produce heat. As liquid metal fast breeder reactors demonstrate, a fission reactor can produce heat AND more fuel than it consumes. Fusion reactions also produce heat and fusion material also increases in a fusion reaction (stars increase in mass). When a neutron is formed by the binding of an electron and proton, angular momentum is trapped between the two, which contributes to the total angular momentum of the neutron, and hence its mass. Thus, in the sense of the different types of reactions, all the reactions are capable of producing more energy than what was put into the reaction.
However, there are many reactions that do not release more energy than what went into them. If lead is bombarded with protons to produce gold, it will take more energy to produce the gold than what would be available when the gold decays.
The reason some fusion and fission reactions can produce more energy than what is put into them is because there is sufficient movement between the protons of the nucleus. When a certain distance is reached between protons, the space between them oscillates and generates a proton-sized photon, which is easily captured and converted to a proton. It is also possible that the proton-sized photon can escape, thus contributing 1836 times more energy in radiation than an electron converted to a photon would.
There is an abundance of evidence showing that new matter is constantly being created all around us. The so-called "cold fusion" experiment is a low energy version of fusion, which generates new matter. There are higher energy versions of fusion, such as the so-called "thermal runaway" problem with Lithium cells. There are natural processes taking place within the Earth, which are generating new matter (and heat) all the time, which is why the Earth is expanding. Similar processes occur in stars and electrically active dust clouds (nebulae). The fact that new matter is constantly being created is witnessed by astronomers as the Hubble expansion constant.
Modern theory works from the premise that no new matter can be created. Yet modern theory also acknowledges the existence of both dark matter and visible matter. The creation of visible matter is possible by the conversion of dark matter into visible matter. The destruction of matter (black holes and particle collisions) is possible because visible matter is converted to dark matter. There is no violation of conservation of mass, energy, angular momentum, or anything else.
CERN recently admitted that real photons are generated from the "vacuum." This is possible because of the Casimir effect, which can convert dark matter into visible matter. The first form of existence for new visible matter is always a photon structure. The photons are then absorbed into atoms and convert to either electrons or protons via the photoelectric effect (for the electron) and a similar process for the proton.
Yet, there is an abundance of evidence to support the statements as being true. Nature agrees with what I'm saying, even if mainstream science does not.Both statements are untrue, physically.
I agree that some nuclear reactions (in the specific sense of "nuclear reaction") do not produce more heat than what goes into them. As for Einstein "making a fool of himself," that's ironic considering that Bohr's model of the atom was later proved false.The reasoning is ...at least some nuclear reactions are endothermic, hence cannot "give up more energy than what goes into the reaction"..., and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids electrons from being confined to the nucleus. If he wants to dispute HUP ...well that's where Einstein made an international fool of himself before finally relenting to Bohr in the thirties at the Solvay Conferences.
The HUP is not a physical entity or process. It is a mathematical theory that is acting as a placeholder until a physical theory can be presented. Despite its limited successes, the HUP is one of the incomplete theories holding science back from further progress.
You took my quote out of context and tried to make it look like I was attempting to explain a mainstream concept using the mainstream paradigm. You failed to present the point I was making or show any interest in the paradigm I was presenting. That is called a lot of things, but "science" is not one of them.I may have missed a word, but did not misinterpret what you wrote.
volantis. Let's start with just one point. Perhaps you could elucidate the process by which dark matter is converted into visible matter.? You say this in your last post. pete
Hi Pete, I will gladly explain the process by which dark matter is converted to visible matter. It is easy to understand from the Aether Physics Model, but as you already know, it is not something that can be understood from the Standard Model. The SM does not quantify the structure of dark or visible matter, nor can it without quantifying the Aether. The physics are simple, but as in the SM it is necessary to understand the paradigm, first. Have you read and understood A New Foundation for Physics, yet? If you have, I can get started.
Why don't you just answer the question instead of armwaving around it?
The name of this forum really says it all. The attitude here is one of defensiveness. You are looking for any clue that someone doesn't support the mainstream so you can take your pot shots and proclaim the superiority of mainstream physics. If that is all you want, have at it. But I'm not going to waste time with you.
You put your 'theory' up, I take it you have read the rules of the board and agreed to them otherwise you wouldn't have posted here. It's up to you to answer our questions.
volantis I read most of your white paper. I would have to say your out-of-hand dismissal of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle amounts to asserting omniscient knowledge of particulate interactions, which all scientists know better than to claim. Your maintanence that that is not science, will set your theory far from the realm of reality.
I'd like to know specifically how dark matter will turn into visible matter, in terms of it's interactions at the particulate level....like say, a dark particle will hit a nucleus and generate a particle/ antiparticle pair, the way a gamma ray photon might. pete.
What is seen today as a probability function for the existence of subatomic particles, I can explain discretely with the Aether Physics Model. The discrete explanation involves non-material reality, but it is real non-material reality. What modern physics perceives as an electron cloud, is really the primary angular momentum of the electron existing in a five-dimensional spatial-temporal reference, and which is being perceived from a four-dimensional spatial-temporal reference.
Dark matter is not a particle. Dark matter is primary angular momentum. It is a primordial form of existence, which precedes visible matter. This primordial form of existence is composed of single dimensional strings of mass.I'd like to know specifically how dark matter will turn into visible matter, in terms of it's interactions at the particulate level....like say, a dark particle will hit a nucleus and generate a particle/ antiparticle pair, the way a gamma ray photon might. pete.
Visible matter is composed of this single dimensional dark matter, which has been captured by an Aether unit. An Aether unit is a quantum rotating magnetic field. As the APM shows, non-material reality gave rise to physical reality. The structure for matter comes from the structure of the non-material Aether.
When two visible particles of the same type become polarly aligned and one quantum distance apart, the Aether units they are part of generate a new Aether unit between them. This new Aether unit absorbs primary angular momentum (dark matter) equal to the individual mass of the particles creating it. This new Aether unit which has absorbed primary angular momentum (dark matter) has just become a photon. A photon and an Aether unit have the exact same structure. Also, the photon is equal the subatomic particle that created it times the speed of light.
Thus, if two electrons are caused to be magnetically aligned and exactly at one quantum distance, they will generate a photon from the Aether. This is called the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect is algebraicly identical to the strong force law for the electron. These points are quantified and explained in the white paper.
According to the Aether Physics Model, and contrary to the SM explanation, the photoelectric effect occurs when a photon is absorbed by an atom and converted to an electron, and when an electron is ejected from an atom as a photon.
In the Aether Physics Model, the electron is quantified as its angular momentum, which is why Planck's constant shows up in so many different formulas. The photon is equal to Planck's constant times the speed of light.
Thus, when the electron leaves the atom as a photon, it is traveling at the speed of a photon. And when a photon strikes an atom, it loses its velocity and again becomes an electron. However, I do not believe there is a constant exchange of exactly one photon with one electron. It appears that as a photon travels, it travels as an expanding toroid or sphere. Only a portion of the angular momentum of a given photon will strike a given atom. Since light is actually a stream of photons, there will be numerous successive photons also striking that same atom. The angular momentum accumulates in a single Aether unit until it is full and thus has an electron on hand. The explanation I just gave is fully compatible with the wave packet theory as presented by Einstein. The "wave packet" is the group of successive photon portions equal to an electron. The real focal point is that nothing new can happen in the atom until a whole electron spin position is filled, thus it appears there is a "wave packet."
Not only can electrons produce electron-sized photons, but the proton, antiproton, and positron can also produce photons of their size, too. Protons align to produce new proton-sized photons, and since they almost always exist in atomic nuclei, the new photon is quickly absorbed into the nucleus and changes the atomic structure. This should be how fusion works.
Clouds of protons could also produce new proton-sized photons in super heated and highly magnetic plasmas. I believe this explains why the Sun's corona is many times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
The overall expansion of the Universe is likely due to the constant generation of new matter and Aether, which takes place in Nebulae, stars, planets, and other bodies of matter.
I hope you take the time to finish reading the paper. Everything in that paper is fully quantified and based upon empirical measurements. There are no special postulates, thought experiments, or imagined data. The entire theory is built upon the same data as the SM, but interpreted based upon a distributed charge paradigm, rather than the single dimension charge paradigm being used.
When I first started working on this theory, I was of the opinion the Aether was an imaginary construct. I though the Aether did not exist. It was only after I had fully quantified the quantum rotating magnetic field, which encapsulates all visible matter, that I was forced to accept the existence of the Aether. The Aether is a fact of nature when the physics are properly quantified. Calling the Aether by a dozen other names while denying the Aether exists is folly, and is one of the reasons modern physics keeps running up against brick walls, anomalies, and modified theories.
If the Aether is simply accepted as the non-material reality that it is, we can easily see how all the pieces fit together. Dark matter is converted to visible matter because of the electrical and magnetic properties the Aether imparts to it. The Aether has a five-dimensional spatial-temporal structure, which is why subatomic particles appear to have half spin from our four-dimensional spatial-temporal perspective.
The Aether Physics Model is not only accurate, but it is necessary to understand for science to advance any further. You cannot possibly make sense out of the HUP unless you learn to see the structure of matter as presented in the Aether Physics Model. You cannot understand what you are seeing with regard to quarks until you understand the Aether Physics Model. You cannot understand the physical meaning of General Relativity theory until you understand the Aether Physics Model. You cannot understand the nature of light until you understand the Aether Physics Model.
The white paper I provided gives the proper foundation for beginning to understand the Aether Physics Model. It is only an introduction. The APM is far more extensive and expandable. It is the Rosetta Stone of the Universe. Take the time to actually understand it. It is worth every minute of your time. Once you catch on, you will realize you have discovered a vast and untapped frontier for new science discoveries. The APM is doorway to the last great frontier of science, don't miss this opportunity.
volantis. I'll keep reading. So, taking a piece at a time....you're saying dark matter is one dimensional strings of mass. Yes? pete
In my view, it is necessary to understand the different orders of reality in order to understand the relationship of dark matter to baryonic matter.
Subatomic particles are primary building blocks of atoms, and atoms are primary building blocks of molecules, and molecules are primary building blocks of cells and crystals, and cells are primary building blocks of organs, and organs are building blocks of bodies. We could continue to observe how subatomic particles bind in various combinations to produce the complexity of the physical world we are familiar with.
We can also imagine that just as subatomic particles are building blocks of more complex structures, they too are composed of more primary structures. Dark matter and Aether are both non-material structures, yet have different properties from each other. When these properties combine, they produce subatomic particles.
Technically, atoms are the first level of particulate reality. Subatomic particles exist in a two-dimensional surface over curved space (Aether). Only after subatomic particles bind together are there true spatial particles of matter.
Dark matter is a more primary state of existence than is a subatomic particle. It is not a particle at all, yet it can blob together, like peanut butter. Neutrinos appear to be blobs of dark matter. The transformations of neutrinos into apparent different structures is due to this non-particulate, blob nature of dark matter.
To understand physics preceding the level of subatomic particles requires thinking in a new paradigm. One must accept that non-material reality is just as real as physical reality. This shouldn't be too difficult, since magnetic fields are an example of real non-material reality. We can definitely feel the force of magnetic fields between two magnets held in our hands even though magnetic fields are non-material reality. Magnetic fields are not made from matter, yet they can influence matter.
Actually, magnetic fields are just one of many manifestations of the Aether. Even though the Aether cannot be directly seen, it is nonetheless very real and has multiple measurable properties (velocity, permeability, permittivity, conductance, sphericity).
One of QM's weaknesses is it is based upon the assumption that all physical existence is particulate. Molecules are considered particles, yet they should be seen as clumps of particles. Atoms are the true particles.
Subatomic "particles" are a misnomer since they are not particles at all. Even mainstream science knows subatomic particles have a cloud-like structure. Subatomic particles (I call them onta), are a string of mass moving sideways in a five-dimensional, non-material Aether unit. The movement occurs in a frequency dimension, which we cannot see from the perspective of material existence. If you held a pencil in front of your eyes and moved it quickly sideways, you would see a blur of an area traced out by the pencil. Electrons are blurs traced out by the string of mass moving sideways through the Aether unit.
The string of mass is just one component of the electron. Therefore, there is no comparing dark matter to visible matter on a one-to-one basis. It is a lot like comparing momentum to mass in the equation:
momt = mass x velc
Momentum is composed of mass. Comparing momentum and mass would be like comparing an arm with a human.
So the relationship of dark matter to visible matter, in terms of fermions and baryons, is that dark matter is one of the structural components of fermions and baryons.
What evidence have you to support all this? What about some Maths?