[General] new particle -- the univon

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Viv,

Thank you for the link to your website.

Your introductions to chapters 1 & 2 are close enough to my views that I
can send them (via the link) to interested people instead of trying to
write an explanation myself.

In your Brief Summary (of Chap 5), you mention a nuclear "skin" effect. Do
you explain what you mean in detail in the chapter? I am proposing
something similar to account for the "negative" energy levels in  Dirac's
relativistic bound-electron model for which a filled electron sea has been
proposed. If so, I might be able to reference your book.

Best regards,

Andrew



On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:38 AM Viv Robinson <viv at universephysics.com>
wrote:

> Dear Chandra, Grahame, Richard, Albrecht and all,
>
> Chandra it is pleasing to see you still hosting this "Nature of light and
> particles" address. Early on the activity and ideas were freely flowing. A
> lot of us dropped out because the messages seemed not to be related to
> reality as non detected particles were introduced to explain some “problems
> in modern science”. These included rotars, hods, tachyons/super luminal
> particles, microvita, and now sprinq univons. To  me they seem like “string
> theory”. It uses particles too small to ever be detected existing in
> dimensions that have never been detected to get results that don’t match
> observation. In other words, out of touch in a 3 D universe.
>
> Richard, I agree with you that cosmologists don’t have a clue about what
> happened before the Big Bang and not much of a clue in the inflationary
> period. Grahame, I agree with you that every aspect of the universe is
> controlled. The Big Question is “How and by what”? This is not the time or
> place to give a complete answer. So Grahame, at your request for something
> thought-provoking, I offer the following. Throughout what I describe I have
> used the principle of "know the physical situation involved and use
> mathematics to calculate the magnitude of that physical effect". I use only
> known physical constants like e, c, h and G, and others derived from them
> and known and detected stable particles, photons, electrons, protons,
> neutrons and neutrinos. I used variations of the Williamson/van der Mark
> electron model for all particles being composed of toroidal or, as I call
> it, rotating photons. My philosophy includes particles create fields.
> Understand the particle properties well enough and you can get answers
> without needing field equations.
>
> I would like to acknowledge that I have been in frequent contact with John
> Williamson and Martin van der Mark (JW&MvdM) over the past decade and have
> benefited from the knowledge they passed on to me.
>
> It is my hypothesis that all matter is composed of rotation photons. The
> best experimental proof of that comes from the Large Hadron Collider and
> other particle accelerators. Charged particles are injected into an
> accelerator and accelerated by the addition of photons. They are
> accelerated to high velocities, enough to increase their mass by many
> orders of magnitude and slow down their Internal “clock”, relative to
> observers. When they are smashed into targets they generate a variety of
> short lived particles, all of which, when everything has died down, decay
> into electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos and photons. Nothing else
> stable has ever been detected. The most obvious reason for that is that
> nothing else exists.
>
> Using a model for photons, I suggest that all particles are composed of
> photons making two revolutions within their wavelength, the JW&MvdM model,
> also developed by others. Charged particles, protons / electrons, are
> composed of circularly polarized photons. Neutral particles, neutron and
> neutrino, a composed of plane polarized photons. Einstein’s special
> relativity corrections are an automatic consequence of how those particles
> move, as are their de Broglie wavelengths. Another SR correction is that
> the radius of a rotating photon structure decreases with velocity
> according to the standard SR correction. That is why an electron is
> detected as a point particle at high energy but behaves like a particle
> with Compton radius dimensions at low velocity.
>
> I get a reasonable match of the charge distribution and magnetic moment of
> the proton and neutron based only on that model and their masses. The
> “intrinsic spin” difference between photons and neutrons is the hbar
> difference between the circularly polarized and plane polarized photons
> from which they are composed. The array of elementary particles detected
> comes from the increased velocity adding mass and slowing down time when
> accelerated. When they are stopped, their mass and time (their frequency of
> rotation) are "out of   synch” with their new time frame. They get rid of
> the excess be emitting a series of photons, both rotating and linear. The
> rotating photons are particles. They and the original particles cascade
> through a series of quasi stable oscillations until they reach their stable
> state. Muons and pions are so prevalent because they are part of the
> structure of nucleons at rest. All others are relative transients.
>
> The structure of protons and neutrons provides the means by which they
> bind. With a set of simple rules it is possible to put together a model of
> any nucleus of any A and Z and determine its structure and many of its
> properties. It answers many unknowns such as why do nuclei have such a
> large “skin effect”, why does He4 have the highest charge density of any
> nucleus, while it near neighbor has the lowest of any with higher Z, why
> are C12 nuclei triangular shaped, why is Pb208 (or Bi209, if you want), the
> highest A and Z stable nuclei, why there are so many isotopes, which ones
> are the more stable, along with the mechanism of nuclear binding and a
> whole lot more.
>
> The quantized origins of electron orbits and some of the “peculiar”
> quantum behavior are simply properties of the rotating photon structures.
>
> Having described the structure and properties of nuclear and
> atomic/molecular binding worlds, standard model classical physics gives a
> good description of most phenomena up to galaxies and galaxy clusters,
> their rotation and some general relativity gravitational effects excluded.
> I found that applying Newtons work to photons, which Einstein acknowledged
> had mass, the effects calculable by his field equations can be easily
> calculated. I get 42.99 arc sec per century for Mercury’s perihelion
> precession. What I find amusing is that "general relativity practitioners”
> either haven’t read or don’t understand Einstein’s derivation of his field
> equations. A read through his papers show he pointed out the limitations to
> his calculations and acknowledged that his field equations were
> approximations. Exact solutions to approximations are still approximations.
> That doesn’t stop relativists from believing in black holes when Einstein
> didn’t believe in them.
>
> The physics behind Einstein’s gravity was the mass distorted space-time,
> producing gravity. It differs from Newton’s inverse square law by the
> space-time distortion of redshift, z, to photons. Classical gravity is  F =
> GMm/r^2. “Relativistic" gravity can be expressed by F = GMm/[r(1 + z)]^2.
> That is what gives Mercury its anomalous precession, which when viewed from
> Earth is ≈ 42.99 arc sec/century. It is easy to show that photons traveling
> through the universe will undergo a gravitational redshift when they have
> travelled far enough. The observed redshift astronomers closely see matches
> this gravitational redshift. The important feature is that gravity is
> weaker than inverse square when redshift is detectable. It is easy to show
> that, as distance tends to infinity, gravitational attraction tends to
> zero. An infinite steady state universe won’t collapse. The major feature
> the Big Bang theory had in its favor was the belief by Einstein and others
> that gravity remained inverse square. When it doesn’t, all the pillars of
> the Big Bang theory disappear and an infinite steady state universe emerges
> as the only option.
>
> Richard, I suggest that is the best explanation of why cosmologists can’t
> agree on the pre and early Big Bang period. It is difficult to get a
> consensus on something that didn’t happen. Grahame, Chandra, the only
> reason why such an extensive study can yield good results is because
> everything is controlled, and by just one principle. It doesn’t need any
> hypothetical undetected particles, strings, branes, quarks, gluons,
> tachyons, superluminal or otherwise, bosons including Higgs but excluding
> photons, rotars, univons, dark matter, dark energy and the like to get that
> far.
>
> Albrecht, I agree with your suggestion about the non acceptance of
> superluminal travel. In my model of circularly polarized photons, the
> photon travels at c in a straight line. The electromagnetic field spirals
> around it and therefore could be described as superluminal. But it is a
> mathematical point that is spiraling faster than c, not something physical.
> That is a minor point (pardon the pun). Standard model reviewers don’t
> accept anything that is not either standard model or complex mathematics.
>
> For those interested, I have put together a manuscript I have called *How
> to Build a Universe* Beyond the Standard Models. Details can be found at:-
>
> www.universephysics.com
>
> (Grahame, I don’t have your web site presentation skills.)
>
> The work remains largely unpublished in mainstream or other journals. I
> got tired of Reviewer comments that essentially say “It is not standard
> model, so we won’t publish it”! However it makes dozens of predictions that
> can be tested experimentally (in nuclear, particle and atomic levels) or by
> observation (at astronomy and cosmology levels). Neither is the study
> complete. I rely on John W for some equations and have welcomed and
> acknowledged his input. I understand many other physicists have similar
> views and are working on similar lines.
>
> IMHO, we don’t live in a universe that is fine tuned for life to exist. We
> live in one that is inherently stable, where h, G and e can’t have any
> different values and c varies between observers but is always fixed for
> local observers.
>
> John W is organizing a Workshop and Conference for later this year where
> it is hoped a group of like minded people would gather to present ideas and
> papers founded on three space dimensions and time and using only observed
> particles. It is hoped the occasion would enable the group to "advance the
> cause” of understanding the “perpetually evolving universe”. If you are
> interested in attending/presenting, you might like to contact him for
> further information.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vivian Robinson
>
>
>
> On 10 January 2020 at 3:01:42 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra (
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu) wrote:
>
> Grahame:
> Keep up the good work!
>
>      No human knowledge is the final knowledge.
>
> Our Enquiry about the rules, the meanings and the purposes behind the
> perpetually evolving universe, must keep evolving. That is the only
> “assurance” in our thinking should be accepted.
> Chandra.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
> Dear All,
>
> Thanks, Richard, for highlighting a fundamental truism that's central to
> our work: either our universe is a product of focused intention, or it's
> random.  If the latter is true then we may as well all stop bothering with
> our research - or anything else, for that matter: any illusion that we may
> have that our work, or any of our activities, are leading in some postive
> direction, or that we are in any way masters of our own destiny, is just
> that - illusion; our own beings, along with every other aspect of the
> cosmos, are just random assemblages of matter/energy following train-tracks
> determined by randomly-generated 'rules', supplemented by further
> randomness at a quantum level.  Anyone who thinks that we have even the
> slightest hint of self-determination in such circumstances is just kidding
> themselves: the idea that self-determination could ever be an emergent
> property of pure randomness is a pipe-dream, one that collapses at the
> first hint of objective analysis.
>
> The notion of pure randomness generating a cosmos with constants
> finely-tuned to support all the phenomena that we see around (and within)
> us also of course necessitates the notion of an infinity of cosmoi, with an
> infinity of different combinations of fundamental constants.  I never cease
> to be baffled by the view that this is a scientific perspective whilst the
> concept of an intentional universe is somehow woo-woo or fanciful.
>
> Let's be clear, the idea of an intentional universe is not in any way less
> credible than that of an infinite number of universes - as I'm sure William
> of Ockham would agree.  It's definitely not in any way a 'religious'
> concept - rather, the 'infinity of random universes' is surely a prime
> contender for the title of 'religious belief'.
>
> Planck, Schrödinger and other pioneers of Quantum Mechanics had no doubts
> that consciousness is a founding principle and an active agency underlying
> the material world.  As my own speculative contribution to this narrative,
> I have written a trilogy of science fiction novels based on a scientific
> perspective on Relativity that I know various others in this group
> subscribe to, extended into the field of what I refer to as 'Consciousness
> Science'.  This trilogy posits the idea that the fallacy of c as an
> absolute speed limit might be challenged by adding 'applied consciousness'
> into the mix - and points to various well-established phenomena as support
> for that idea.
>
> Colleagues may be interested to see how my trilogy first finds a means to
> implement FTL travel and then goes on to use that means to explore and
> colonise stars tens of light years away (in time scales measured in months
> - reduced to hours for the travellers by well-explained time dilation
> effects).  A major purpose of this series of books is to provoke
> discussion, and deeper thought, about this whole issue - including the
> potential for, and possible nature of, life on exoplanets (stretching the
> boundaries on the basis of documented scientific facts).
>
> Details of my books can be seen at:
> www.vaikandor.com
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaikandor.com&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248697778&sdata=XoYBffiKTsH6UY%2B7eSkijSPG5Hz7RZ9rkPHyB7Hp71U%3D&reserved=0>
>
> I hope some of you at least find the topic thought-provoking.
>
> Grahame
> =======
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2020 11:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] new particle -- the univon
>
> Hello all,
>
>  Here's the title and abstract that I just submitted for a talk at the
> American Physical Society's next annual April meeting.
>
>  Title: Superluminal Primordial Information Quanta (Sprinqs) Created and
> Compose a Multiverse of Equally Fine-Tuned Universes Evolving Life and
> Highly-Developed Minds
>
>  Abstract: A proposed univon particle or cosmic quantum, composed of a
> circulating superluminal primordial information quantum (sprinq), created
> our universe and many others as a multiverse of equally “fine-tuned”
> universes. Their fundamental particle masses, forces, and other fundamental
> parameters are “just right” to evolve stable galaxies, stars, advanced
> life-forms and developed minds. Based on previous electron and photon
> models, sprinqs also compose the fundamental particles in our universe and
> other universes by moving superluminally in different ways to express
> different particle attributes. The univon is the quantum particle of a
> proposed univon quantum field. If other universes are detected having
> “un-tuned” values of their constants and thus without stable stars and
> higher life forms, this would suggest that all universes emerge by
> following purely physical laws. Our fine-tuned inhabitable universe would
> then just be an extremely improbable universe. However, observational
> evidence for a fine-tuned multiverse would support the hypothesis of a
> cosmic intelligence creating and maintaining our multiverse in a natural
> way.
>
>  Questions or comments?
>     Richard
>
> On Nov 26, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>    Here's an article about a proposed new particle -- the univon -- that
> produced our universe and other similarly "fine-tuned" universes in a
> multiverse.
>
> Univon Particle Created Our Universe and Many Others
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2Fattachments%2F61344179%2Fdownload_file%3Fs%3Dportfolio&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248707772&sdata=0p4oauP0XmMjsts2ltG1yyvPb6nT8IOfZjK1bBDaKmk%3D&reserved=0>
>
> best wishes,
>            Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
> <a href="
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fchandra.roychoudhuri%2540uconn.edu%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248737757&sdata=j3Nqg55xFaHnI3gECO5fQBAlhhm3lNtv6hiw4XX2bNE%3D&reserved=0
> ">
> 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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20200114/e4aedca6/attachment.html>