[General] Univons, cosmic quantum fields and the next scientific revolution

[André Michaud]

Hi Vivan,

You wrote: "The standard model proposes neutrons are made of quarks, 2 down and 1 up. When that theory is used, gravitational force can become so great that it overcomes the quark/gluon forces and causes neutrons to collapse. Treating them as point particles, the whole neutron star collapses down to a point. A black hole requires gravity to have a singularity at r = a. That means the gravity acts at distance a, not about the centre of mass. There is simply no mechanism by which that can occur because it requires gravitational “action at a distance”. Even Newton recognized that was a problem. It amazes me that, over 300 years later, modern cosmologists reckon that is not a problem and that it is alright to invoke action at a distance because it is supported by some mathematics they don’t recognize as an approximation."

Isn't this disregarding the fact that all elementary particles making up the masses of all nucleons and atoms are electrically charged and that the Coulomb interaction is de facto in permanent action between all of them?

There is no need to resort to "action at a distance" when it is put in perspective that it is the kinetic energy locally induced in them that causes their motion, and not the Coulomb interaction as such.

This is put in perspective in this recently published paper:

Michaud, A. (2020) Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial Interpretation. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 16-80. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003. 

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf

Best Regards, André


---
André Michaud
"GSJournal admin" <ntham at gsjournal.net>
http://www.gsjournal.net/
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-5684
http://www.srpinc.org/




On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:25:38 +1000, Viv Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:

body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}

Hi Adam,

 

There are at two important reasons why black holes do not exist. The first is they are a mathematical prediction from Einstein’s gravitational field equations, which, as I mentioned below, he acknowledged they were an approximation. Second if you extend his early work, you get a metric in which the Schwarzschild term (1 - a/r), where a is Schwarzschild radius alpha, is actually exp-a/r, where exp is the natural log term. 1 - a/r is the first approximation of exp-a/r. There are other reasons as well.

 

The standard model proposes neutrons are made of quarks, 2 down and 1 up. When that theory is used, gravitational force can become so great that it overcomes the quark/gluon forces and causes neutrons to collapse. Treating them as point particles, the whole neutron star collapses down to a point. A black hole requires gravity to have a singularity at r = a. That means the gravity acts at distance a, not about the centre of mass. There is simply no mechanism by which that can occur because it requires gravitational “action at a distance”. Even Newton recognized that was a problem. It amazes me that, over 300 years later, modern cosmologists reckon that is not a problem and that it is alright to invoke action at a distance because it is supported by some mathematics they don’t recognize as an approximation. 

 

In the model of nucleons I propose, a proton is a fundamental particle composed of a rotating circularly polarized photon of the appropriate energy. A neutron is a neutral proton by virtue of having an electron, an anti-electron neutrino and a bit more energy embedded in its structure. Its intrinsic spin difference is determined by the proton’s rotating photon being circularly polarized and the neutron’s rotating photon being plane polarized. You can get more details at my website www.universephysics.com. There is no suggestion that gravity could ever be strong enough to compress such structures down to a point. 

 

Whether you use the quark model and all the neutrons collapse to a point or you use my model, the gravitational attraction depends upon the mass of the object. The mass at the centre of Sagittarius A* is about 3 million solar masses. That gives it a Schwarzschild radius a ≈ 10 million kilometers. Its neuron star radius would be about 2,000 kilometers. That would still give a sufficiently strong deflection to photons traveling near that radius would still be bent strongly by its mass.  Whether gravity originates at 10 million kilometers from the centre or from the centre, when an object is about 50 million kilometers away, it is difficult to tell the difference between the two fields. To the best of my knowledge, resolution is currently limited to over 500 million kilometers. As such current observations can’t distinguish between the two. The swirling gas/dust cloud would still heat up. 

 

In summary, it is just a massive spinning neutron star. Barring some unforeseen circumstances, it spins in the same direction as the galaxy and the inner stars rotate. Astronomers have detected massive objects - neutron stars. It is theoreticians who call them black holes.

 

Hope that helps,

 

Vivian
 

 
 

On 4 February 2020 at 3:59:20 PM, Adam K (afokay at gmail.com) wrote:



 


Hi Vivian,

 

A vivid email! The second paragraph is great. 

 

I’m curious — you say black holes do not exist with great confidence. You probably also know that the stars and dust at the center of the galaxy orbit extremely fast around a dark object called Sagittarius A* which, if it moves at all, does so within the margin of measurement error of the instruments recording it. Do you have any theories as to what this object is? 

 

Best wishes,

 

Adam

 
On Feb 3, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Viv Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
 



 

Richard and all,
 

 
 

As you all know, standard model practitioners regard their model for the structure of fundamental particles, quarks, gluons, leptons and bosons as the most accurate theory ever forwarded by humans. It has a number of problems, including but not limited to:-
 

 
 

It is almost entirely a description that uses complex mathematics that are too difficult for mere mortals to follow.
 

Particles are treated as point particles. Their properties are attached mathematically with no physical reason for their existence.
 

No quarks and gluons have ever been independently isolated and detected.
 

Effects like Einstein’s special relativity corrections with velocity (including the Lorentz transformations) and his gravitational field equations from his general relativity theory are mathematically superimposed upon particles with no physical description of what causes them.
 

Being unable to give the structure of electrons, photons and other particles Schrödinger, Dirac and others developed wave equations to explain their properties.
 

They (standard model practitioners) introduced the concept of a quantum foam in a unified field theory in which all particles were said to be harmonics in that quantum foam field.
 It enabled accurate calculations of small scale phenomena such as the electron's anomalous magnetic moment and the Casimir effect.  

 
 

As far as they are concerned, it really has only one problem. It requires the energy density of the universe to be 10^120 time larger than what is measured. The “average” person would tend to suggest that a difference between theory and experiment of a factor of 10^120 was the largest error between theory and experiment ever forwarded.
 

 
 

A standard model cosmologist statement has been “Give us one miracle and we can explain the rest”. Their interpretation of a "miracle” is something that has no physical explanation or is not possible according to the laws of physics. Their “miracle” is the origins of the Big Bang. They throw in a period of hyperinflation (when the universe expanded faster than the speed of light) as part of that miracle. To that they have developed a theory in which luminous matter (that which can be seen with an optical telescope) makes up 0.4% of the universe, non luminous matter (gas and dust clouds) make up 3.6%, dark matter (which holds galaxies together and bends some light trajectories) make up 23% and dark energy, which is said to be blowing the universe apart) makes up the remaining 73%. Despite decades of searching there has not been the slightest hint of the detection of anything that resembles dark matter or dark energy particles. 
 

 
 

To explain the 1:10^60 chances of the universe existing some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang they introduced another 10^60 parallel universes outside our visible universe. That leaves them with an error of something 10^180 between their models and observation. That doesn’t include lack of knowledge of the structure of quarks, leptons, gluons and bosons. Despite those huge variations, they have made very little progress in understanding the structure of the nuclei since the 1940’s (nuclei make up over 99.9% of the mass of the 4% of the observable (luminous and gas/dust clouds) universe. There is still much they can’t explain so they try “string theory” which requires a total of 10 spatial dimensions, even though there is not the slightest experimental evidence for any spatial dimensions beyond the three we observe around us. The foolishness of modern standard model practitioners is they insist they are doing a good job and have a good understanding of the universe. Is it any wonder that non standard model practitioners want to come up with other alternatives?  
 


 

 

IMHO, it is no good trying to to replicate standard model failures based on a set of undetected particles that violate the laws of physics by using another set of undetected particles that also violate the laws of physics. Richard, apart from giving an equation with impossible dimensions, your above presentation does nothing to overcome any of the difficulties associated with the standard model. Like the Big Bang theory, the presentation does nothing to explain where the univon/sprinqs came from, nor how they decayed into the currently known particles or give rise to the physical laws. 

 

As I mentioned in a previous email, if you really want to advance beyond the standard model, it would help if you stuck to the three space dimensions, time and known physical properties. At the moment, the standard model fits nicely into a primary school teacher’s comments to a student. “If you can’t get the right answer by cheating, there is no hope for you.” The standard model has so many undetected particles and so many errors of many tens of orders of magnitude that it is hard to believe that adults treat it seriously. 

 

For example, the Big Bang theory is valid only if the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two masses. A quick look at Newton’s Proposition 45 of his Principia and observations of the precession of Mercury’s orbit shows that gravity can be weaker than inverse square. A look at Einstein’s work on gravity shows that mass distorting space-time is determined by photon redshift, z. Mass distorting space means r becomes r(1 + z). Mass distorting time means t becomes t/(1 + z). Applying gravitational force Fg = GMm/[r(1 + z)]^2 and correcting for Earth’s motion, gives Mercury’s perihelion a precession of 42.99 arc sec per century. Einstein calculated 43 arc sec/century using 1915 values. More recent values indicate 42.98. Personally I would not like to "make a living” off their differences. 

 

Gravity is gravity, whether it is inside or outside matter. As redshift increases, the force of gravity decreases as 1/[r(1 + z)]^2, and not 1/r^2. As z is a function of 1/r, it becomes apparent that as r tends to infinity, the force of gravity tends to zero. An infinite static universe will not collapse under its own mass. The gravitational redshift also accounts for the observed time dilation without needing a Doppler effect. Together they mean the pillars of the Big Bang theory have no foundation that can’t be explained by a steady state universe based on Newton and Einstein’s work on gravity. 

 

It is surprising the number of people who comment on gravity yet appear not to have read Newton’s Principia or Einstein’s early gravitational work. In his early gravity work, Einstein commented on the property of space-time that mass distorts. In the same manner, in his work on photons, Einstein indicated they had mass mp = hv/c^2. Yet standard model practitioners indicate photons are massless.  

 

Standard model physicists have such tight censorship in mainstream journals they will not allow alternative viewpoints to be published. That helps explain why so many people try to come up with alternative explanations. My suggestion is that you don’t try to match standard model physics. There was no Big Bang. There are no black holes. (Einstein did not believe in them. He admits the derivation of his gravitational field equations was an approximation. Anybody who read and understood his work would see his approximations. An exact solution to an approximation is still an approximation.) No quarks or gluons, or even fractional charge, have ever been detected. And don’t forget, the standard model requires an energy density to the universe of about 10^110 J/m^3 for some of their accurate calculations, such as an electron's anomalous magnetic moment. The experimentally measured value is about 10^-10 J/m^3. (If my memory serves me correctly, the energy density of a neutron star is about 10^45 J/m^3.)

 

IMHO, well equipped and documented experimental results take priority over theoretical calculations. That is particularly when there is a difference measured win orders of magnitude, let alone 120 orders of magnitude.  

 

I will continue the comment of my previous email. The universe is composed in three space dimensions and time with constants e, h, G and c [= 1/epsilon0.mu0)^2]. They are all you need to explain many properties the standard model can explain, with the universe having an energy density of about 10^-10 J/m^3. They are all you need to make sense of nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, Einsteins relativity theories and more.

 

So Richard, my comments on you above paper:-

1) “Brownie points” for trying to come up with something different.

2) IMHO, replacing one set of undetected particles and violations of physical laws with another set of undetected particles and violations of physical laws does not necessarily constitute the next scientific revolution.

 

Sincerely,

 

Vivian Robinson

On 1 February 2020 at 2:11:06 PM, Richard Gauthier (richgauthier at gmail.com) wrote:



Hello all,

 
   Here’s the link to my just-published (on Academia.edu)  new article:


Big Bangs Created by Univon Particles from a Conscious Quantum Field - Towards the Next Scientific Revolution

It’s also the first article at richardgauthier.academia.edu/research 


 

I would appreciate hearing any comments any of you might have.

 

 
 

You are welcome to forward the link to interested colleagues.
 

 
 

Comments are welcome.
 

 
 

all the best,
 

       Richard
 

 
 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at universephysics.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>



 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at universephysics.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a> 


_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org

Click here to unsubscribe
 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20200204/eea7fb63/attachment.html>