Archive for September, 2011
Summary: New paper released > Uses cordus concept > Provides conceptual model for annihilation > Based on conjectured internal structure (hidden variables) > Describes internal processes in detail > Covers conversion of Electron and Antielectron into Photons > Full paper on science archive
Annihilation is the process when antimatter meetes matter, and is converted to energy. In the movie ‘Angels & Demons‘, this threat of an antimatter explosion is what drives the plot. Another movie using antimatter, this time for rocket propulsion, was Star Trek. So the idea of antimatter annihilating and releasing lots of energy has been around a while.
And it is true that the CERN particle accelerator is making (tiny) amounts of antimatter. See a movie from CERN on the antimatter LHCb experiment… here. The aim is to work out the fundamental constituents of matter.
We all know the Einstein maths: E=mc^2 This tells us that matter can convert into energy, and indeed this is what we see in annihilation. But how exactly does the process work? That’s not something we have good theories about. How does something solid like mass, get converted into something as unsubstantial and apparently massless as light? That is a big mystery.
So, what we have done is taken the cordus model for antimatter (see previous post) and develop a model for the annihilation process itself. Yes, it’s tentative, but we can now offer a theory to show exactly how the internal structures of the electron and antielectron (positron) reform to those of the photon. The paper is on the vixra science archive … here. Have a read: you might be surprised how simple the solution turns out to be.
- Electron-positron annihilation, Wikipedia
- Antimatter: Overview of the Dirac and Feynman theories of antimatter, by David M. Harrison
- Antimatter sticks around (physorg.com)
- What is antimatter? (cordus.wordpress.com)
Terry is author of the ‘Discworld‘ series of humorous fiction books. In one of these, ‘Thief of Time‘, he describes chaos theory, which is personified in a character called Kaos. We modified this a bit to adapt it to Cordus:
Quantum mechanics is ‘apparently complicated, apparently patternless behaviour that nevertheless has a simple, deterministic explanation via the cordus conjecture that is a key to new levels of understanding of fundamental physics’
Terry’s proper quote is shown below:
‘Apparently complicated, apparently patternless behaviour that nevertheless has a simple, deterministic explanation and is a key to new levels of understanding of the multidimensional universe?’ (p358)
Dirk 17 Sept 2011
I like what Lee Smolin said about the limitations of quantum mechanics:
‘I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. …. Quantum mechanics must then be an approximate description of a more fundamental physical theory. There must then be hidden variables, which are averaged over to derive the approximate, probabilistic description which is quantum theory.’
We come to a similar conclusion in the cordus paper on the seven flaws of quantum mechanics:
‘From the cordus perspective, the classical world does not emerge from the quantum world, nor is quantum mechanics the reality. Rather there is a deeper mechanics from which both emerge. Quantum mechanics only approximates some of the deeper behaviour, and even then only for a limited range of geometric scales. ‘ (p16) Why Does Quantum Mechanics not Scale Up?
We did not set out to address Smolin’s concerns at the beginning. Instead we simply wanted to see if it was possible to reconceptualise and thereby solve wave-particle duality of the double-slit. The resulting cordus concpet did that. And it turned out that it does a lot more.Now we can even explain why quantum mechanics is as good as it is, while simultaneously being wrong.
Dirk 15 Sept 2011
Reality is concrete enough, at least at our level of experience, but what exactly is all that matter made of? What is antimatter (aM) and how does it differ from matter? Why and how do the two annihilate? Why does the universe contain so little antimatter compared to matter? Those questions are difficult to answer with current fundamental physics.
There are some big questions in there. We have been giving them some thought, and have a solution to offer for the basic first question: what exactly is the difference matter and antimatter? Here’s what we have come up with: Mirror images: Matter and Antimatter It describes how the internal structure differs between matter and antimatter, e.g. the electron and positron (antielectron). We create a new concept of handedness, called ma, and an operational definition based onthe energisation sequence of the cordus reactive-ends. This cordus concept permits models to be created differentiating between the electron, proton, and antielectron (positron). This explains why the antielectron is very different to the proton despite the same charge, and why the photon does not have an antiparticle. It also allows the wider integration of bonding and annihilation as manifestations of a single deeper mechanics.