Archive for November, 2011
Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe exist at all? What is nothingness? How did the laws of physics exist before the universe existed? What is time?
These are difficult existential questions in physics. Closely related, though a little less abstract, is the issue of why matter exists at all. While energy may be turned into matter, it always produces an exact equivalent amount of antimatter. The two should then annihilate back into energy. Yet unexpectedly the universe consists of matter, almost entirely. There is not even nearly enough antimatter to cancel out the matter.
In physics this is called the asymmetry of baryogenesis. ‘Baryogenesis’ refers to the creation of the heavy baryons which make up the protons and neutrons, and ‘Asymmetry’ because matter dominates over antimatter. Why this might be is an unsolved mystery of cosmology.
There are several theories for how the asymmetry arises. The main contenders are supersymmetry (that all particles have heavier twins that we have not yet seen) and right-hand neutrinos. Both these theories require exotic particles, none of which have yet been detected. So the problem is very much still open.
Into this space we inject a cordus solution. It is also based on neutrinos, but the plain everyday type that are known to exist. It does not require any exotic physics, other than the cordus idea itself.
To put it simply, we are suggesting that the apparent asymmetry of baryogenesis is because the antimatter is hiding in plain sight, having been remanufactured into the matter baryons themselves. In this model four photons are transformed into an electron and proton, i.e. a hydrogen atom, and two antineutrinos. The antimatter field structure of the antielectron is carried away by the antineutrinos as a waste stream.
This paper therefore provides an alternative conceptual solution to the baryogenesis asymmetry in the universe, and it also explains the leptogenesis asymmetry.
Quantum mechanics itself cannot explain this problem. This has long been considered a worrying sign of a potential conceptual flaw in QM itself. Hence the ongoing interest in the Cat.
New Scientist has an interesting recent article on Schrodinger’s Cat: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228363.600-quantum-upgrade-removes-need-for-spooky-observer.html
As that though-experiment shows, it’s really hard to make physical sense of quantum mechanics. If QM is true at the sub-microscopic scale –which seems true enough- then why does it not apply to the macroscopic world in which we live? As Schrodinger asks, why does something like a cat not show quantum behaviour? Why is the cat not in a superposition of dead and alive states?
No-one has been able to answer that. Correction, people have been able to answer it, but only by shifting the problem out of the physical domain. Thus one solution, and perhaps the most popular at present, is Everett’s many-worlds-theory, where all the possible outcomes do occur, but each in another universe. As a theory goes it obviously has the major problem of being non-physical. You cannot measure or interact with these other universes. So it is a solution beyond our physical domain: a metaphysical solution. (And just think, who is keeping track of all the information in all these infinity of universes?)
Other than that, there really isn’t much else in conventional physics as an explanation. For some alterantive perspectives, see this vixra list.
The cordus conjecture answers this question very easily, and using a physically natural explanation. It explains what’s happening in the Schrodinger’s Cat situation, and why we don’t see undead cats. It also explains why QM does not scale up to the macroscopic level.
Of course cordus is radical in its own way, in that it disagrees with the conventional QM assumption that particles are zero-dimensional points, and instead proposes they are two-ended structures. While the cordus structure may be strange, it is not metaphysical. So the cordus explanation stays firmly in the physical domain.
Read the full paper here: Why does quantum mechanics not scale up? http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0019v1.pdf . It is pretty much a maths-free explanation, so anyone with a basic education should be able to get something out of it.
- What is Erwin Schrödinger associated with (wiki.answers.com)
- Quantum mechanics difficult to grasp? Too bad (newscientist.com)
- One-Minute Physics: Schrödinger’s Cat [Video] (geeksaresexy.net)
- Physicists seek to quantify macroscopic quantum states (physorg.com)
- Testing the Copenhagen interpretation: a matter of live and dead cats (telegraph.co.uk)
We’ve produced a novel conceptual model for neutrino structure.
Neutrinos are those tiny particles that pretty much pass through everything. There are billions of them passing through everything, including our bodies, every second. However they are very unreactive, so they don’t do any harm. But that also means that measuring them is a major challenge to physics.
Nonetheless they are extraordinarily interesting to physics, both to fundamental physics and cosmology. Knowing them better could confirm existing theories or identify whether a different physics was at work.
What we’ve done is create a model of the internal structure of the neutrino and its antimatter counterpart the antineutrino.
The results include or suggest:
- the neutrino is not its own antiparticle
- neutrinoless double beta decay is predicted to be infeasible
- neutrino predicted to be nominally massless
- explains why the neutrino moves at the speed of light
- gravitational bending of its trajectory is explained
- explains why neutrinos are always found with left-hand spin, and antineutrinos with right, and suggests that the opposite structures are fundamentally unavailable.
As in all things cordus, the validity of this model is uncertain, because it is based on conjecture and conceptual design. However, simply being able to offer a coherent answer to some of the really difficult WHY questions of neutrino behaviour, and do so with a physically realistic solution, is a worthwhile contribution on its own.
Now that we have a neutrino solution, we can consider tackling some other problems in fundamental physics. It’s looking quite fun.
The full paper is here http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0022 and is free to download.
Feynman diagrams are the standard way of showing how particles interact and morph into different types. But they don’t show internal structures – which is fair enough given that physics assumes that all particles are zero-dimensional points (0D). But cordus suggests a different structure, one where ‘particules’ (note the extra u) have an internal substructure.
We needed a way to show what happens to the internal structures when two particules meet or smash into each other. So we created a diagrammatic method to represent the three dimensional field structures of a particule. We call these ‘HED diagrams’.
We have given it a test-run on the electron-antielectron annihilation process, and it seems to work fine. That particular mixture of matter and antimatter is called positronium, and a neat thing about HED notation is that it successfully predicts how the two different forms of that weird stuff behave.
The paper is easy to read, and a pdf is available for free here….. Cordus process diagrams