Archive for May, 2012

Wave-particle duality for cars!

Now! Wave-particle duality for cars!

Well done to the team at Loyola University for spotting the potential for a macroscopic example of wave-particle duality! (Read more…)

Car garage!

More seriously, one of the all time mysteries is why quantum mechanics does not scale up to this level. QM seems to accurately describe the doings of the atomic world of particles. Yet  it does not seem to scale up to macroscopic objects. For example, the biggest objects that have been shown to pass through the double-slit experiment are molecules (see below). Nothing like a car.

Quantum mechanics itself can’t explain why it doesn’t scale up to macroscopic objects. But with the cordus conjecture we think we can.

The answer, we propose, has to do with two factors. The first is the scale over which coherence can be sustained. Very roughly, coherence refers to all the particles moving as one. QM assumes that coherence applies without limit, to the large assemblies of atoms that make up macroscopic bodies like cars, cats, and the objects that we can see with our senses. Clearly that is not the case, because cars don’t go through both exits at once, nor are cats simultaneously alive and dead (Schrodinger’s cat). Cordus explains why coherence does not apply to these objects. It has to do with the inability of  every atom in the object to move as one. In turn that inability arises because of the mixture of atoms/molecules, the internal flows of material (especially important for living creatures), and the warm temperature of these objects. So these objects are not in internal coherence.  Therefore they are not in geometric superposition. Which means they cannot be in two places at once. Therefore the car cannot go through both exits at once.

The second factor is that even if a macroscopic object can be placed in coherence (which we predict is likely but only for small cold inanimate objects), then the required width of the slits is predicted to be as wide as the object, so the two slits will merge into a simple gap, and the resulting positional uncertainty of the object once through the gap (i.e.  fringes) will be small.

You can read more about this interesting topic below, including some recent examples of large molecules going through the double-slit deice, and our own more detailed explanations of Quantum mechanics’ scaling problem.


, , ,

Leave a comment

Exciting Things For Neutrinos To Do!

Neutrino and antineutrino structure: The cordus conjecture proposes internal structures to particules. This diagram shows the structure of the neutrino family, including the fibril, reactive ends, and the discrete field. It is the hand, quantity and arrangement of these field elements (hyffons) that determine the characteristics of the particule as it interacts with other particules.

Further to the previous post about the mirror worlds and the New Scientist article on that topic, it seems impossible to talk about matter-antimatter without neutrinos butting into the conversation somewhere. Or antineutrinos. Problem is that these particles are difficult to detect, and harder still to understand.

The cordus conjecture identifies that the neutrino family (includes the anti~) have a lot to do with many nuclear processes.  Here we explain why. First, we need to go back to the matter-antimatter dichotomy.

In the cordus mechanics, handedness is the primary difference between matter and antimatter. Specifically that the dichotomy involves the inversion of the handedness of the discrete field structure. Cordus also predicts that the hand of the particle cannot be changed without one of the neutrino family being involved, for reasons that will be shown.

Using this type of concept it is possible to get quite far in explaining the matter-antimatter annihilation process itself (, the relative lifetimes and decay products of para- and orthopositronium (, the left-handedness (spin) of the neutrinos (, and the weak interaction ( These effects involve matter-antimatter, or neutrino family effects.

All these explanations are given in simple physically natural descriptions, albeit unorthodox. Within that list of papers are proposed solutions to some problematic gaps in conventional physics. Providing an explanation for why neutrinos always have left-spin-hand, and antineutrinos are right-handed, is one such novel development. Another is baryogenesis, which comes next.

Putting it all togther results in a model for the asymmetrical baryogenesis. This is one of the unsolved problems in physics: why is there so much matter in the universe, and so little antimatter, given that the conversion of light to matter should have produced equal amounts?

In the cordus answer to this, the energetic antielectron from pair-production is remanufactured into  a proton, and the antimatter field structure of the antielectron is carried away by antineutrinos  as a waste stream ( . So in this model the antimatter is hiding in plain sight, with the antineutrinos carrying the evidence away to the edges of the universe.

So the cordus model describes what neutrino are, how they interact with other particules, and why they have the characteristics they do.

Related articles

, ,

1 Comment

Notmatter vs antimatter

Is ‘notmatter’ another form of matter?

A new and rather odd state of matter appears in the  cordus model. The cordus explanation of the weak interaction (beta decay, W and Z bosons) identified the possibility that matter, e.g. an electron, might exist in state of having reversed charge, but still the same discrete field structures of the electron, and the same hand as the electron (

Ettore Majorana

Ettore Majorana (Photo credit: Kanijoman)

We call this the notElectron, and give it the symbol !e in the HED mechanics. It appears in the HED equations for neutrino-antineutrino annihilation, as a decay product of  notPositronium. It would seem that any particule can in principle have a !not version.

Maybe in principle, but we could not give a physical explanation for notmatter at the time. Now we think we can.

It seems that notmatter corresponds to holes where matter would otherwise be expected. This is only expected to apply where there is a regular  ordered structure of the matter, such that the absence of one particule makes a well-defined hole. So example materials would be superconductors and superfluids.

If one electron is missing in a network of electrons in a superconductor, then the fields inside that hole correspond to the fields of the neighbouring electrons, but reversed. The hand of those fields is therefore unchanged. So according to the cordus mechanics, this hole is not antimatter (because the hand of the field is not inverted). Instead the hole is an absence of matter, and behaves like a particule in its ability to move around.

This !notmatter concept is a new one, and only accessible in the cordus model. The concept only makes sense if understood in conjunction with the electron having internal structures and discrete field elements.  You cannot understand this concept from quantum mechanics, because that theory assumes that particles are zero-dimensional points and therefore by definition do not have internal structures.

The concept of electrons and holes is well-established in the physics of electron conduction, and a reality of semiconductors and electronic devices that are in everyday use. These holes have been physically observed. So that part is not contentious, though of course the cordus explanation probably will be.

It was thanks to a  New Scientist article that we have been able to join the notElectron and hole concepts.

NS was very excited about the possibility that the Majorana particle (one that is simultaneously matter and antimatter) had been observed in the form of electron vs hole  behaviour in superconductors ( This front-page article ‘Mirror worlds merged’ appeared in the  12 May 2012 issue. A while back NS also had a cover article on finding magnetic monopoles in these kinds of materials, and now it was matter-antimatter pairs. That got us thinking laterally, and we suddenly realised that the holes they were describing corresponded to the notElectron that the cordus HED mechanics  identifies.

So, what are the implications?

Well for a start, and assuming that the cordus mechanics is correct, then what they have observed is not a real Majorana particle but rather an electrical analogy that exists in the matter domain.

More fundamentally, cordus predicts that real Majorana particles do not readily exist. For them to do so would require a particule that could change the hand of its field from the matter to the antimatter hands. That is because handedness is the primary difference between matter and antimatter in the cordus model. Furthermore, changing the hand requires discarding the unwanted hand, which is what the neutrino and antineutrinos are doing. Positronium (a temporary bond between an electron and an antielectron) might be a closer analogy to a Majorana particle.

So the associating the cordus notElectron with the electron-hole provides a neat physical explanation for something observed in reality and predicted in the cordus conjecture. The cordus HED mechanics can then be used to represent these structures.

Related articles

, , , ,