[General] 3 D universe

[Viv Robinson]

Dear Andrew,

Most things in nuclear physics have been interpreted in terms of their quark structure. Deep inelastic scattering have shown nucleons have structures that have angular momentum and are smaller than the nucleons. That plus their theories allows them to continue quark with quark theory, even though the quarks don’t have sufficient angular momentum to explain all the nucleon angular momentum. Those structures they observe are in my model. With everything being electromagnetic in nature, getting an electric field to penetrate it will be difficult anyway. 

Re the charge distribution of a neutron. I am glad they have found the outer negative ring - it should be very weak, total charge less than about - 0.1e and spreading out to a radius of about 5 fm (give or take a bit). As for a neutron having a negative central core, the charge measured charge distribution is what I call a first approximation. A second approximation, i.e., measurement in greater detail, suggests there would be a weak detectable negative charge of dimensions about 0.01 fm (give or take a bit - depending upon the limits of measurement), at the centre of the neutron’s central core, which has maximum positive charge at about 0.105 fm radius. Lets wait and see how accurate their measurements are.

Regarding Norman D Cook’s book, I bought a copy of his first book and used it extensively in my research into nuclear physics. I haven’t seen his second book. My models don’t relate to any of the lattice structures he used in his first book. My model is layers of face centered hexagonal close packed structures with specific positions for protons and neutrons. 

Regarding the link you sent. Interpretations of the size of the nucleons comes from using the quark model and thinking of them as solid spheres. They are neither. It is no surprise their models don’t work. It is summed up by the statement: " It violates existing theories of nuclear physics”. When that occurs, it should be time for a new theory. Nucleons slightly change their shape inside a nucleus. My main comment is “No wonder they are going nowhere fast!” Nothing I read in that article seems in disagreement with my model. And remember, particles under the rotating photon model come equipped with inbuilt special relativity corrections with velocity. Even if theoreticians finish up getting some kind of modification that gets quark theory to fit observed experimental data, the best they can do is mathematically superimpose the special relativity correction onto their work, with no idea of what causes it. 

Also remember. All you get out of proton/anti-proton annihilation is photons and possibly neutrinos. You don’t get quarks popping out or leaving any other residual signal. Perhaps that suggests that quarks must be made of photons?

Andrew I would like you and others to realize this is no quirky quarky, high on rhetoric, low on detail, presentation. It is detailed, from the structure and properties of neutrinos and why they are detected within a second or so the light from intra-galactic supernova, right through to relativistic gravity effects. It is higher on matching observation than the standard models. There is still a lot of work that needs doing on this model of the universe. John W is contributing well. It is part of my hope that others may want to join in. A part of my hope is that, if others want to develop new particles and ideas, they give a little thought to some of the finer detail of the universe.  

Cheers,

Viv

On 15 January 2020 at 1:22:06 PM, Andrew Meulenberg (mules333 at gmail.com) wrote:

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  by Norman D. Cook | Feb 10, 2006

Models of the Atomic Nucleus: Unification Through a Lattice of Nucleons  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.
"... these very strong nuclear forces ... are a bit like electromagnetic fields, except they're strong force fields." This fits with a relativistic-electron Cb potential model.
"... 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.
"... 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
 
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>
_______________________________________________  
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>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20200115/ba638783/attachment.html>