[General] 3 D universe

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear VIv,

Thank you for your quick reply. Your skin effect was not what I had
hoped/expected, although it might somehow be related. My concept is that
the nuclei and nucleons are (super?)conductors. As such, they will
rearrange themselves internally to reduce any impinging electric field that
might seek to penetrate.

Re: The charge distribution curves for the proton and neutron. The most
recent figure that I have seen identifies, in addition to the outer
negative ring, a negative potential at the core of a neutron. Does that
present a problem for your model? Or, would you suggest that we just wait
and see?

I had meant to ask this in the earlier email, because I did not have access
to your references. Do any of your nuclear models relate to the lattice
nuclei of Norman Cook which does have "layered" nucleons?
Models of the Atomic Nucleus: With Interactive Software
<https://www.amazon.com/Models-Atomic-Nucleus-Interactive-Software/dp/3540285695/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=norman+cook&qid=1579009314&s=books&sr=1-13>
by Norman D. Cook | Feb 10, 2006
Models of the Atomic Nucleus: Unification Through a Lattice of Nucleons
<https://www.amazon.com/Models-Atomic-Nucleus-Unification-Nucleons/dp/1892925125/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=norman+cook&qid=1579055192&s=books&sr=1-6>by
Norman D. Cook | 2019
I have not read the recent version (published after he died); but, if you
need it, I may be able to get you an electronic copy of his earlier book
(w/o the software), which I liked.

This recent article, link below, refers to 3 items of interest to me.

https://www.livescience.com/mystery-of-proton-neutron-behavior-in-nucleus.html?fbclid=IwAR0IlQmBawS5EkgkaXxl9SET0bExL-su9Yt3dETNlsea0G9AfWzLV7-7OHQ

The items are based on new results from recent scattering experiments.

   1. "... these very strong nuclear forces ... are a bit like electromagnetic
   fields <https://www.livescience.com/38169-electromagnetism.html>, except
   they're strong force fields." This fits with a relativistic-electron Cb
   potential model.
   2. "... these force fields ... actually deform the internal structure of
   protons, neutrons..." This fits with my model of a bound electron lowering
   the net mass energy of a binding proton.
   3. "... 20% of nucleons in a nucleus are bound up in short-range
   correlations." and  "... about 20% of the nucleons in a nucleus are ...
   paired off with other nucleons, interacting in "short range correlations."
   This fits with my model of the stability of neutrons in a nucleus coming
   from their exchanging a deep-orbit electron with a proton. However, I would
   be more exact in the above expressions, which I feel should start with "At
   any given moment ..."

More food for thought.

Best regards,

Andrew

PS   With my preschool twins, I fear that time and financial limitations
will prevent me from attending the workshop. I will really miss seeing the
group and enjoying the excitement of exchanging all the ideas maturing
since the last meeting in San Diego.
_ _ _

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 7:12 PM Viv Robinson <viv at universephysics.com>
wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Glad to hear from you.
>
> The origins of the nuclear "skin" effect is illustrated by the images in
> my chapter 3 Brief Summary. The charge distribution curves for the proton
> and neutron show their charge extends beyond 2 fm. They were experimentally
> measured by Hofstadter, Littauer and others. That charge originates in the
> plane of rotation. Individual nucleons in nuclei are aligned in layers. For
> Z > 3, they form in multiple layers. Protons have a measured radius of ≈
> 0.87 fm. The “skin” effect is related to the difference between that
> measured radius and the extent of the charge. It varies a little with the
> structure of the nuclei.
>
> It should be noted that whenever nucleon and nuclear dimensions are
> measured, the experimental arrangement means they are only measured “end
> on”, that is, perpendicular to the charge distribution.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Cheers,
>
> Viv
>
> PS Hope you can make it to John W’s Workshop/Conference.
>
>
> On 15 January 2020 at 12:17:15 AM, Andrew Meulenberg (mules333 at gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> 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
>> =======
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/f33d6b3f/attachment.html>