Our previous work indicates that, under the rules of this framework of physics, the neutrino and antineutrino (neutrino-species) interact differently with matter. Specifically that (a) they interact differently with the proton compared to the neutron, and (b) they are not only by-products of the decay of those nucleons as in the conventional understanding, but also can be inputs that initiate decay. (See previous posts).
Extending that work to the nuclides more generally, we are now able to show how it might be that decay rates could be somewhat erratic for β+, β-, and EC. It is predicted on theoretical grounds that the β-, β+ and electron capture processes may be induced by pre-supply of neutrino-species, and that the effects are asymmetrical for those species. Also predicted is that different input energies are required, i.e. that a threshold effect exists. Four simple lemmas are proposed with which it is straightforward to explain why β- and EC decays would be enhanced and correlate to solar neutrino flux (proximity & activity), and alpha (α) emission unaffected.
Basically the observed variability is proposed to be caused by the way neutrinos and antineutrinos induce decay differently. This is an interesting and potentially important finding because there are otherwise no physical explanations for how variable decay rates might arise. So the contribution here is providing a candidate theory.
We have put the paper out to peer-review, so it is currently under submission. If you are interested in preliminary information, the pre-print may be found at the physics archive:
This work makes the novel contribution of proposing a detailed mechanism for neutrino-species induced decay, broadly consistent with the empirical evidence.
New Zealand, 14 Feb 2015
You may also be interested in related sites talking about variable decay rates:
See also the references in our paper for a summary of the journal literature.
In our paper [1: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n2p1] we anticipate a unified decay equation. It describes all three conventional decays: β- neutron decay, β+ proton decay, and electron capture (EC). These are the decays of the individual proton or neutron.
Here is a handy Mnemonic for remembering all these decays, based on this equation: pie with icing equals nuts with egg below and a dash of vinegar
|Pproton||+||2y + iz(energy)||<=>||nneutron||+||eantielectron or positron||+||Vneutrino|
|pie||with||icing||equals||nuts||with||egg below||and||a dash of vinegar|
Then rearrange this to suit. Remember to invert the matter-antimatter species when you move a particle across the equality (species transfer rule). Note that we use underscore to show antimatter species, and this is the same as the overbar with which you may be more familiar. (We don’t use overbar because it is a confounded symbol used in other contexts such as h-bar. Underscore is a fresh and clearer way to designate antimatter species. It is also a visual reminder that this mechanics needs to be understood from within the NLHV framework of the Cordus theory, i.e. we are not talking about the usual zero-dimensional point particles of quantum mechanics here. Underscore is also easier to print and therefore use.)
The equation as written is focussed on the proton decay, which is β+. It is called beta plus because it gives a positive charge output in the form of the e hence ‘+’.
β+ proton decay: p + 2y => n + e + v
For electron capture just move the e across the equality to the p side and change it to plain ‘e’ instead.
Electron capture (EC): p + e => n + v
For neutron decay, move both the e and v across the equality, changing them to e and v. It is called beta ‘minus’ because the output is the negatively charged electron.
β- neutron decay: n => p + e + v
Remember that electric charge and matter-antimatter species hand are not the same thing. This is an easy area in which to get confused. Electric charge (+/-) refers to the direction in which the discrete forces of the electric field travel, and may be outwards or inwards from the particle. The matter-antimatter species hand (m/m) refers to the handedness of the discrete field, which in the Cordus theory corresponds to the energisation sequence of the field (somewhat like the firing order of a three-cylinder internal combustion engine) which also has two variables.
The mnemonic works for all three conventional decays providing you remember the species transfer rule, but I’m not convinced of the soundness of the dietary advice!
- Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Asymmetrical neutrino induced decay of nucleons Applied Physics Research, 2015. 7(2): p. 1-13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n2p1 or http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0279
The original Cordus conjecture  was a broad conceptual work, and we did not foresee that assuming a two-ended structure for particles would ultimately lead to highly specific predictions for many other phenomena, including nuclear processes as here. Now the theory predicts that neutrino-species can induce decay, and do so asymmetrically . That paper also predicted an underlying orderliness to the decay processes, in the form of a unified decay equation for individual protons and neutrons (nucleons).
Nucleons decay by β- neutron decay, β+ proton decay, and electron capture. These decays proceed by the emission of a neutrino species in the output stream. This is the forward direction. There is also a predicted inverse decay, where the neutrino-species is supplied as an input. The theory also predicts that the inverse decay can be induced, depending on the particle identities.
It is proposed that all these decays can be expressed in a single equation, the unified decay equation, given by:
p + 2y + iz <=> n + e + v
z discrete force complex (a type of vacuum fluctuation)
2y a pair of photons
i quantity, e.g. of photons
<=> indicates the decay is bidirectional
The equation can be rearranged. However, and this is important, there is a species transfer rule. Thus particles other than photons change matter-antimatter hand when transferred over the equality. One also has to be sensible about mass when predicting which side the photons are required.
For example, this equation may be rearranged to represent β-, β+, and EC in the conventional forward directions:
β- neutron decay: n => p + e + v
β+ proton decay: p + 2y => n + e + v
Electron capture (EC): p + e => n + v
Furthermore, by representing the equality as bidirectional we can show both the conventional (forward) and proposed neutrino-species induced decays in simple equations. For example:
p + e + v <=> n
with β- in the ‘<=’ direction, and antineutrino induced electron capture represented by ‘=>’.
It is simple to represent additional decays such as:
p + n <=> e + v + iy
Many other applications are possible. This simple mechanics of manipulating decay equations permits an efficient representation. The many different decays can all be represented in one equation. The equation holds for the conventional decays even if its reliability for the induced decays still needs to be validated.
So instead of trying to remember the three conventional decays (β-, β+, EC), simply remember one unified equation p + 2y + iz <=> n + e + v
- Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., Pons, A. M., and Pons, A. J., Wave-particle duality: A conceptual solution from the cordus conjecture. Physics Essays, 2012. 25(1): p. 132-140. DOI: http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.132 or http://vixra.org/abs/1106.0027 .
- Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Asymmetrical neutrino induced decay of nucleons Applied Physics Research, 2015. 7(2): p. 1-13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n2p1 or http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0279
Most things in physics are symmetrical. This is evident in action-reaction forces and the conservation of momentum and energy. Particle interactions are generally also symmetrical. At least the Standard Model of particles predicts that particle interactions are symmetrical when charge, parity and time (hence CPT) transformations are all applied.
Which makes our latest findings all the more curious. In ‘Asymmetrical neutrino induced decay of nucleons’ (http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n2p1) we predict that the neutrino and antineutrino behave differently in their interactions with the proton and neutron. There are two parts to this prediction. First we predict that the neutrino and antineutrino (neutrino species) can cause (induce) decay. The conventional interpretation is that they are merely outcomes of the decay process, and are not involved in the input side at all. Second, we predict that the neutrino species induce decay differently with the proton and neutron (nucleons), hence asymmetrical decay. In contrast the conventional interpretation is that nucleon decay is purely random, that the mean lifetimes are constant, and that decay is not affected by the external environment.
This prediction is made on theoretical grounds by a logical extension of the Cordus theory, specifically by using its mechanics for discrete fields. This predicted asymmetry is novel and unorthodox. There is nothing in physics that disallows such an asymmetry, but neither is there any reason to expect it. We were therefore surprised that this asymmetry emerged. It was not something that we were actively seeking, but rather it was a supplementary exploration while we were searching for answers to the asymmetrical genesis problem. We have addressed the genesis situation elsewhere, and can explain how the universe came to be made up of more matter than antimatter (CP violation). The present paper takes a similar approach, in that it uses the same Cordus mechanics, but the starting point is different.
The problem is that the operation of neutrino detectors shows that nuclide decay rates can be affected by loading of neutrino species. However the underlying principles of this are poorly understood. The purpose of this paper was to develop a conceptual solution for the neutrino-species interactions with single nucleon decay processes. Single nucleons, i.e. a single proton or neutron, are a simplification of the more complex situation inside the nucleus of large atoms. The starting point was the non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution provided by the Cordus theory, specifically its mechanics for the manipulation of discrete forces and the remanufacture of particle identities. This mechanics was applied to the inverse beta decays and electron capture processes for nucleons. These are situations where the neutrino or antineutrino is supplied as an input, as opposed to being an output as in the conventional decays.
Our findings are that Inverse decays are predicted to be differentially susceptible to inducement by neutrino-species. The inverse β- neutron decay is predicted to be susceptible to neutrino inducement (but not to the antineutrino). Correspondingly β+ proton decay is predicted to be induced by input of energetic antineutrinos, but not neutrinos. Hence a species asymmetry is predicted. The inverse electron capture (EC) is predicted to be induced by pre-supply of either a neutrino or antineutrino, with different energy threshold requirements in each situation. The neutrino induced channel is predicted to have the greater energy barrier than the antineutrino channels.
We also have a third prediction. This is that one unified decay equation can be written to express β- neutron decay, β+ proton decay, and electron capture. Furthermore, that this equation applies to the conventional forward decays and the induced decays proposed here. The originality here is the proposed new methodology for predicting the outcomes of decays and particle transformations. If valid, this provides a simplification in the representation of the decay processes. An interesting little rule in the unified decay equation is that transfers across the equality result in inversion of the matter-antimatter species (hand).
What would be the implications if all this was valid? Well, the theory predicts the existence of a number of induced decays with asymmetrical susceptibility to neutrino-species. The results imply that detectors that measure β- outcomes are measuring neutrinos, and β+ antineutrinos. A novel prediction is made, that neutrino-species induce decay of nucleons, and that the interaction is asymmetrical. Hence also, that different decay types are affected differently by the input of energy and neutrino-species. A detailed explanation is provided of how this occurs at the level of the internal structures of the particules.
This is an unorthodox theory and an unexpected set of predictions. Whether or not this theory is valid we do not yet know, but it does make specific predictions that no other theory makes, which is interesting. None of these are contemplated from conventional theories of quantum mechanics, the standard model, or supersymmetry. This might seem a weakness, but is actually a good position to be in for concept development. If a theory can predict something specific that other theories cannot, then then that differentiates the theory. In this case the predictions are also testable. Consequently this gives a way to for the future to show whether or not it is valid (falsifiable). For the moment we simply state that it is a logical extension of the Cordus theory, and the outcomes are curious enough to be worth reporting.
Why is the neutron stable inside the nucleus, but the free neutron outside the nucleus is unstable? Or to put it another way, why don’t neutrons in a nucleus decay, and why can’t free neutrons survive on their own? This is one of those problems that is difficult to explain. The decay behaviour of the neutron, which is the β- decay, can be measured and quantified, but the process itself is unknown. Conventional explanations are given in terms of mass-energy of the components and binding energy between them. However that’s a superficial quantification of WHAT happens in the situation. It does not explain HOW and WHY at the deeper level. Our latest paper addresses this topic (http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n1p1).
We started from the assumption that matter particles are not zero-dimensional points, but instead have internal structures and emit discrete fields (Cordus particule structure http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.132). We then determined how the discrete fields would operate within such a conceptual framework. We created a mathematical formalism of the principles for manipulating discrete forces and transforming one type of particule into another. This was used to determine the structures of the W and Z bosons, and the causes of neutron decay within this framework. It turns out that the stability of the neutron inside the nucleus arises because its pattern of discrete field emissions is complementary to that of the proton. The neutron is stable in this bound state because the assembly with the proton results in a complete, as opposed to incomplete, set of discrete forces. This gives the neutron the ability to resist the disrupting effect of the discrete fields coming at it from its surroundings. Hence the stability of the neutron within the nucleus.
This also means that the neutron is an intermediary between the protons. The discrete fields of the protons are otherwise incompatible with each other. Think of the neutron and proton as rods that join only at their ends. The result is chains of neutron-proton-neutron-proton-…. etc. This we call the ‘nuclear polymer’ and our other work shows how this may be used to explain the stability, instability, and non-existence of nuclides (H to Ne) (http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p145).
That addresses the stability question. Regarding the other side of the problem, the instability of the free neutron arises because its own discrete field structures are incomplete. Consequently it is vulnerable to external perturbation by discrete fields arising from other particles in the universe (the ‘fabric’ http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874381101306010077). These incoming fields subject the free neuron to discrete forces, and we propose that the neutron spatially re-orientates its own field emissions to evade the incoming disturbances. However there is a high degree of randomness in the discrete fields of the fabric, and eventually the free neutron is caught out and its evasive behaviour is constrained. At this time it decays, via β- decay, into the more stable form of the proton.
The exponential life of the free neutron arises because the decay is determined by the random supply of external discrete fields (the background fabric). Consequently any one neutron has an equal chance of decaying anywhere between zero and infinite time. It’s probability of failing in the next instant is not dependent on how many previous instants have elapsed. In terms of probability this means it has a ‘constant hazard rate’. And a characteristic of such is an exponential lifetime. Thus we can explain why the free neutron has an exponential lifetime, as opposed to any other probability density distribution. We further propose that the magnitude of the neutron’s mean lifetime is determined by the fabric density of the epoch and location of the neutron.
Other implications of this work are that the W bosons are by-products from the weak decay process, and do not cause the decay. The weak decay is shown to be in the same class of phenomenon as annihilation, and is not a fundamental interaction.
Originality – A novel theory has been constructed for the decay process, using a NLHV mechanics that is deeper than quantum theory. This new theory explains the stability-instability of the neutron and is consistent with the new theory for the stability of the nuclides.
Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., & Pons, A. J. (2015). Weak interaction and the mechanisms for neutron stability and decay Applied Physics Research, 7(1), 1-11. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n1p1
Fundamental physics and cosmology intersect at genesis. Some really big and interesting problems arise here. One of these is to explain the production of matter at the initial genesis event (big bang). There are several sub-problems. These include a need to describe how mass-energy equivalence occurs at the fundamental level, i.e. how energy transforms into mass (E=mc^2). This is particularly important for pair-production, e.g. the conversion of photon energy into an electron and anti-electron (positron). It is also necessary to understand how the inverse process of annihilation occurs. Related to that, and an especially difficult problem, is to explain why more matter (electrons, protons) exists than antimatter (positrons, anti-protons). This is the asymmetrical genesis problem, and it has two parts: asymmetrical leptogensis, and asymmetrical baryogenesis, for the electrons and protons respectively.
However the problems don’t stop there. An explanation is also needed for how the neutron is made. This is much the easiest part, since the beta decays and electron capture processes are readily observable, unlike the other parts of the process. So conventional physics already provides theories in this area.
The next step is to explain how the atomic nucleus functions, i.e. how protons and neutrons are bound together. This is much more difficult. The strong force is thought to be the mechanism for this, but its workings at this level have not been solved. Also, the Universe is not made solely of hydrogen, but instead there are many elements, and each has many isotopes, with different lifetimes. All these nuclides need explaining too. Other problems to explain are electron orbitals (quantum theory is pretty advanced in this area), and the inflation process.
In summary, the genesis problem is to explain how energy was converted into the diverse forms of matter that we observer in our Universe.
We apply a production and systems engineering method to this problem. To our way of thinking there exists a GENESIS PRODUCTION SEQUENCE (GPS). We seek to determine what kind of processes could be involved. Our approach is a systems-engineering one based on the premise of physical realism: we take the attributes of the observable universe, and from those infer the necessary functionality of deeper proceses (sub-systems). Where necessary we use design thinking to creatively anticipate the mechanisms that support those deeper systems. We require a logical continuity of explanation throughout the solution that emerges, and constantly test and adjust the theory to achieve this. This provides coherence. We then logically extend the theory to other phenomena, and explore whether it is able to give solutions to those new areas. In this way we test the external construct validity, and further change or extend the theory as appropriate. We have been doing this for several years, and have steadily advanced our coverage of fundamental physics and cosmology. The result is the Cordus theory.
Now the pieces of the genesis production sequence are starting to come together.
The Cordus theory now provides solutions for much of the genesis production sequence. We now understand the processes of mass-energy equivalence, at least at a conceptual level, and this includes both pair-production and annihilation.The asymmetrical genesis problem also has a solution, for both leptogenesis and baryogenesis. [See previous post]. We can also explain the processes for beta decay, and the stability attributes of the nuclides (H to Ne).
The diagram below summarises the production processes from photons to the electron, proton and neutron. Hence the origin of all the basic building blocks of the matter Universe can be explained. The coloured objects in the large central blocks are the inferred internal structures of the various particles.
This is an interesting development for two reasons.
First, it is surprising that a theory based on a non-local hidden-variable design with discrete fields should have this degree of explanatory power. Physics had otherwise given up on NLHV designs. Many have attempted to mathematically disprove even the possibility of their existence, as per the Bell-type inequalities. However the NLHV designs have never been fully disproved on theoretical grounds, and now a design has emerged that shows how powerful they can be in an explanatory sense. By fielding a workable solution, in the form of the Cordus theory, means that the Bell-type inequalities are falsified. This is surprising to many, to the point of disbelief.
Second, it is interesting that a candidate theory now exists for much of the genesis production sequence. Other theories of physics, such as quantum mechanics, relativity, and string theory, have solutions for pieces of this. But their explanations do not go anywhere near the coherence and breadth of this. The new theory starts to show the limitations of the old theories, and starts to subsume them. Consequently the implication is that there is a new physics provided in this internal variable theory. This is difficult for orthodox physicists to accept. We see this disbelief in Reviewers’ comments. They say it is impossible that quantum mechanics is not the solution. Physicists have so much intellectual investment in quantum theory (in particular), that they cannot but persist with QM. In systems engineering we call that a sunk-cost bias.
You can read more about the genesis solution in paper .
1. Pons, D. J. and Pons, A., D., Outer boundary of the expanding cosmos: Discrete fields and implications for the holographic principle The Open Astronomy Journal, 2013. 6: p. 77-89. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874381101306010077.
2. Pons, D. J., Pons, A., D., and Pons, A., J., Time: An emergent property of matter. Applied Physics Research, 2013. 5(6): p. 23-47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p23
3. Pons, D. J., Pons, A., D., and Pons, A., J., Beta decays and the inner structures of the neutrino in a NLHV design. Applied Physics Research, 2014. 6(3): p. 50-63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n3p50
4. Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Explanation of the Table of Nuclides: Qualitative nuclear mechanics from a NLHV design. Applied Physics Research 2013. 5(6): p. 145-174. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p145
5. Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Synchronous interlocking of discrete forces: Strong force reconceptualised in a NLHV solution Applied Physics Research, 2013. 5(5): p. 107-126. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n5107
6. Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Differentiation of Matter and Antimatter by Hand: Internal and External Structures of the Electron and Antielectron. Physics Essays, 2014. 27: p. 26-35. DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0157.
7. Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Annihilation mechanisms. Applied Physics Research 2014. 6(2): p. 28-46. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n2p28
8. Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Asymmetrical genesis by remanufacture of antielectrons. Journal of Modern Physics, 2014. 5: p. 1980-1994. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.517193.
9. Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Weak interaction and the mechanisms for neutron stability and decay Applied Physics Research, (IN PRESS)
10. Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., Pons, A. M., and Pons, A. J., Wave-particle duality: A conceptual solution from the cordus conjecture. Physics Essays, 2012. 25(1): p. 132-140. DOI: http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.132.
A solution to the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem
Problem: Why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe?
A deep question is why the universe has so much matter and so little antimatter. The energy at genesis should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, through the pair-production process, which should have subsequently annihilated. Related questions are, ‘Why is there any matter at all?’ and ‘Where did the antimatter go, or how was it suppressed?’
While it is not impossible that there might be parts of the universe that consist of antimatter, and thereby balance the matter, neither is there any evidence that this is the case. Therefore it is generally accepted that the observed matter universe is more likely a result of an asymmetrical production of matter in the first place. Thus something in the genesis processes is thought to have skewed the production towards matter. But it is very difficult to see how physical processes, which are very even-handed, could have done this.
This is the asymmetrical genesis problem. There are two sub-parts, why there are more electrons than antielectrons around (asymmetrical leptogenesis) and why there are more nucleons (protons and neutron) than their antimatter counterparts (asymmetrical baryogenesis).
Our latest work explores this problem . The full paper is published in the Journal of Modern Physics (link here), and is open access (free download). A brief summary of the findings is given below.
Solution: Remanufacture of antielectrons
The theory we put forward is that the initial genesis process converted energy into equal quantities of matter and antimatter, in the form of electrons and antielectrons (positrons). A second process, which is defined in the theory, converted the antielectrons into the protons. The antimatter component is predicted to be discarded by the production and emission of antineutrinos. Thus the antineutrinos were the waste stream or by-product of the process. Having converted antielectrons into protons, it is easy to explain how neutrons arise, via electron capture or beta plus decay. Thus the production processes are identified for all the building blocks of a matter universe.
Therefore according to this interpretation, the asymmetry of baryogenesis is because the antimatter is hiding in plain sight, having been remanufactured into the protons and neutrons (matter baryons) themselves.
Approach: How was this solution obtained?
To solve the genesis problem, start by abandoning the idea that particles are 0-D points. This is a radical but entirely reasonable departure. Instead, accept that particles of matter are two-ended cord-like structures .
These Cordus particules emit discrete forces, hence discrete fields. The nature of those emissions defines the characteristics of the particule in terms of charge and matter-antimatter species. In turn this defines the particule type: electron, antielectron, proton, etc. This also means that any process that changes the discrete field emission sequence also changes the identity of the particule.
This allows a novel breakthrough approach: we found a way to represent the discrete force structures, and we inferred a set of mechanics that define what transformations are possible under reasonable assumptions of conservation of charge and hand. We calibrated this against the known beta decay processes . We created a calculus to represent these transformation processes: this is called the Cordus HED mechanics. (See paper for details). We call the process RE-MANUFACTURING, as it involves the re-arrangement of the discrete forces including the partitioning of an assembly into multiple particules, and the management of the matter-antimatter species hand (Latin manus: hand). The same HED mechanics is good for explaining other particule transformations like the decays.
Then we used the Cordus HED mechanics to search for possible solutions to the asymmetrical genesis problem. We looked at various options but only found one solution, and this is the one reported in the paper. Thus the HED mechanics predict a production process whereby the antielectron is converted into a proton. The HED mechanics is also very specific in its predictions of the by-products of this process, and this makes it testable and falsifiable.
The antimatter field structure of the antielectron is carried away by the antineutrinos as a waste stream. The antineutrinos have little reactivity, so they escape the scene, leaving the proton behind. This is fortunate since the theory also predicts that the protons would decay back to antielectrons if struck by antielectrons. This would have dissolved the universe even as it formed.
An explanation is provided for why the matter hand prevailed over antimatter during the cosmological start-up process. This is attributed to a dynamic process of domain warfare between the matter and antimatter species, wherein the dominance oscillated and became frozen into the matter production pathway as the universe cooled.
This is an efficient solution since it solves both asymmetrical leptogenesis and asymmetrical baryogenesis.
The genesis production sequence starts with a pair of photons being converted, via pair production, into an electron and antielectron. The Cordus theory explains how . The antielectron remanufacturing processes, described here, convert the antielectron into a proton. The asymmetry in the manufacturing processes arises from domain warfare between the matter-antimatter species, and re-annihilation . Neutrons are formed by electron capture or beta plus decay, for which a Cordus explanation is available . Thus all the components of the atom are accounted for: proton, neutron, and electron. The Cordus theory also explains the strong force, as a synchronization between discrete forces of neighbouring particules , and the structure of the atomic nucleus . The same theory also explains the stability trends and drip lines in the table of nuclides (H-Ne) . This is much more than other theories, and shows the extent to which the Cordus theory is able to radically reconceptualise the genesis process.
This is a radical theory, since it forces one to think deeply and in a fresh way about foundational physics, how matter, energy, time, space, and force arise.
It is also a disruptive theory. First because it predicts that locality fails, and explains how. Locality means that particles are 0-D points and only affected by the fields at that 0-D location. A Cordus particule continuously breaks locality, at least at the small scale. Many physicists have been suspicious about locality, though have been reluctant to let go of it. The Cordus theory requires us to abandon locality.
The Cordus theory also strongly reasserts physical realism, and pushes back against QM’s denial thereof. QM gives weird explanations for double-slit behaviour, interferometer locus problems, superposition, and entanglement. The Cordus theory explains all these from the basis of physical realism, and without all the weirdness. Quantum mechanic’s wave-function is now understood to be merely a stochastic approximation to a deeper and more deterministic reality. That QM gives weird explanations is not because reality is weird, but because QM is only an approximate mechanics for the foundational level. Naturally this is contentious, but such are the debates of science.
Keywords: matter-antimatter asymmetry problem; open questions in physics; baryogenesis; leptogenesis; Sakharov conditions; cosmology; genesis; big bang
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Asymmetrical baryogenesis by remanufacture of antielectrons. Journal of Modern Physics, 2014. 5: p. 1980-1994. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.517193.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., Pons, A.M., and Pons, A.J., Wave-particle duality: A conceptual solution from the cordus conjecture. Physics Essays, 2012. 25(1): p. 132-140. DOI: http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.132.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A., D., and Pons, A., J., Beta decays and the inner structures of the neutrino in a NLHV design. Applied Physics Research, 2014. 6(3): p. 50-63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n3p50
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Pair production explained by a NLHV design Vixra, 2014. 1404.0051: p. 1-17. DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1404.0051.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Annihilation mechanisms. Applied Physics Research 2014. 6(2): p. 28-46. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n2p28
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Synchronous interlocking of discrete forces: Strong force reconceptualised in a NLHV solution Applied Physics Research, 2013. 5(5): p. 107-126. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n5107
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J. Proton-Neutron bonds in nuclides: Cis- and Trans-phasic assembly with the synchronous interaction. vixra, 2013. 1309.0010, 1-26. DOI: http://viXra.org/abs/1309.0010.
- Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., Explanation of the Table of Nuclides: Qualitative nuclear mechanics from a NLHV design. Applied Physics Research 2013. 5(6): p. 145-174. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v5n6p145