Archive for category Matter

Optical phenomena involving energy conversion: Explanation based on new physics

Many optical phenomena have poor or no explanations at the level of individual photon particles. Examples are the processes of photon emission, photon absorption, phase change at reflection, and laser emissions. These are adequately described by the classical electromagnetic wave theory of light, but that applies to waves and is difficult to extend to individual particles. Quantum mechanics (QM) better represents the behaviour of individual particles, but its power of explanation is weak, i.e. it can put numbers to phenomena but its explanations cannot be grounded in physical realism. QM is unable to explain how the 0D point of the photon is absorbed into the 0D point of the electron, or how a 0D photon separates into an electron and antielectron (pair production), or how matter and antimatter annihilate back to photons.

In the paper http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.710094 we show how to solve this explanatory problem. We show that it is possible to explain many optical phenomena involving energy conversion. The solution involves a new physics at the sub-particle level, in the form of a non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution.

Process of photon emission from an electron

Process of photon emission from an electron

 

It has long been known that the bonding commitments of the electron affect its energy behaviour but the mechanisms for this have been elusive. We show how the degree of bonding constraint on the electron determines how it processes excess energy, see figure. A key concept is that the span and frequency of the electron are inversely proportional. This explains why energy changes cause positional distress for the electron.

Natural explanations are given for  multiple emission phenomena: Absorbance; Saturation; Beer-Lambert law; Colour; Quantum energy states; Directional emission; Photoelectric effect; Emission of polarised photons from crystals; Refraction effects; Reflection; Transparency; Birefringence; Cherenkov radiation; Bremsstrahlung and Synchrotron radiation; Phase change at reflection; Force impulse at reflection and radiation pressure; Simulated emission (Laser).

The originality of this work is the elucidation of a mechanism for how the electron responds to combinations of bonding constraint and pumped energy. The crucial insight is that the electron size and position(s) are coupled attributes of its frequency and energy, where the coupling is achieved via physical substructures. The theory is able to provide a logically coherent explanation for a wide variety of energy conversion phenomena.

Dirk Pons

Christchurch, New Zealand

15 June 2016

 

More information – The full paper (gold open access) is available at:

Pons, D.J., Pons, A.D., and Pons, A.J., (2016), Energy conversion mechanics for photon emission per non-local hidden-variable theory. Journal of Modern Physics, 7(10), 1049-1067.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.710094

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

What does the fine structure constant represent?

Fine structure constant α

This is a dimensionless constant, represented with the symbol α (alpha), and it relates together the electric charge, the vacuum permittivity, and the speed of light.

The equation is as follows:

The impedance of free space is Zo = 1/(εoc) = 2αh/e2, with electric constant εo (also called vacuum permittivity), the speed of light in the vacuum c, and the fine structure constant α = e2/(2εohc), with elementary charge e [coulombs], Planck constant h, and c as before. All these are generally considered physical constants, i.e. are fixed values for the universe.

One example of how this relationship may be used is as follows. Given the electric charge, and the vacuum permittivity, then the alpha equation may be used to explain why the speed of light has the value it does. The equation may be rearranged into other equivalent forms.

 What is the physical meaning of the fine structure constant?

This is a more difficult question, especially when coupled with the question, Why does alpha take the value it does? This is something of a mystery.

We believe we can answer some parts of this question. In a recent paper of the Cordus theory  it has been proposed that both the vacuum permittivity and the speed of light are dependent variables, and situationally specific. It is proposed that εo represents the density of the discrete forces in the fabric, and thus depends on the spatial distribution of mass within the universe. Thus the electric constant is recast as an emergent property of the fabric, and hence of matter.

From this perspective α is a measure of the transmission efficacy of the fabric, i.e. it determines the relationship between the electric constant of the vacuum fabric, and the speed of propagation c through the fabric.

This is consistent with the observation that α appears wherever electrical forces and propagation of fields occur, and this includes cases such as electron bonding.

The reason the speed of light is limited to a certain finite value is explained by this theory as a consequence of the fabric density creating a temporal impedance. Thus denser fabric results in a slower speed of light, and this is consistent with time dilation, and optical refraction generally. In the Cordus theory the speed of light in turn is determined by the density of the fabric discrete forces and is therefore locally consistent and relativistic, but ultimately dependent on the past history of matter density in the locally available universe. Thus the vacuum (fabric) has a finite speed of light, despite an instantaneous communication across the fibril of the particule. This Cordus theory is consistent with the known impedance of free space though comes at it from a novel direction.

The implications are the electric constant of free space is not actually constant, but rather depends on the fabric density, hence on the spatial distribution of matter. The fabric density also determines the speed of light in the situation, and α is the factor that relates the two for this universe. It would appear to be a factor set at genesis of the universe.

Reference

Pons, D. J. (2015). Inner process of Photon emission and absorption. Applied Physics Research, 7(4 ), 14-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p24

, ,

Leave a comment

Internal structure of the atomic nucleus: Nuclear polymer

Our previous work has shown that it is possible to explain the existence of the nuclides H-Ne, specifically why each is stable/unstable/non-existent. This is achieved under the assumption that the protons and neutrons are rod-like structures. Previous work in the Cordus theory has shown how the discrete fields of these particules would interlock by synchonising their emissions. Hence the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE was explained as a SYNCHRONOUS INTERACTION of discrete field emissions.

Now we have published the details of these mechanics. See citation below. The theory predicts the nuclear morphology, i.e. the types of shapes that the protons and neutrons can make in their bonding arrangements. It turns out that this is best described as a NUCLEAR POLYMER. Thus the atomic nucleus is proposed to consist of a chain of protons and neutrons. In the lightest nuclides this chain may be open ended, but in general the chain has to be closed. It appears that for stability the proton and  neutron need to alternate, and this explains why neutrons are always needed in the nucleus above 1H1. The theory also predicts that the neutrons can form CROSS-BRIDGES, and that these stabilise the loop into smaller loops. This also explains another puzzling feature of the table of nuclides, which is why disproportionately more neutrons are required for heavier elements. In addition the theory predicts that the sub-loops of the nuclear polymer are required to take specific shapes. This paper explains all these underlying principles and applies them to explain the hydrogen and helium nuclides.

The significance of this is the following. First, this is the first published theory of why individual isotopes are stable or unstable, or even non-existent. By comparison no other theory has done this, neither the binding energy approach, the semi-empirical mass-formula (SEMF),  the various bag theories, nor quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Second, this has been achieved with a hidden-variable theory. This is a surprise, since such theories have otherwise been scarce and hard to develop. The only one of note has been the de Brogle-Bohm theory of the pilot wave, and that certainly does not have application to anything nuclear. So the first theory to explain the stability features of the table of nuclides for the lighter elements is a non-local theory rather than an empirical model, quantum theory, or string theory. That is deeply unexpected. It vindicates the hidden-variable approach, which has long been neglected.

Ultimately any theory of physics is merely a proposition of causality, and while any theory may be validated as sufficiently accurate at some level, there is always opportunity for further development. The Cordus theory and its nuclear mechanics implies that quantum mechanics is a stochastic approximation based on zero-dimensional point morphology of what the Cordus theory asserts is a deeper structure to matter.

Of course there is still much work to do. Showing that a hidden-variable theory explains these nuclides is an achievement but is not proof that the theory is valid. In the future we will need to expand the theory to the larger table of nuclides. If it can explain them, well that would be something. Also, it would be interesting to devise a mathematical formalism for the Cordus theory. Doing so would provide another method to explore the validity of the theory.

Dirk Pons, 9 July 2015, Christchurch

Pons, D. J., Pons, A. D., and Pons, A. J., Nuclear polymer explains the stability, instability, and non-existence of nuclides. Physics Research International 2015. 2015(Article ID 651361): p. 1-19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/651361 (open access) or http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0007 (open access)

Problem – The explanation of nuclear properties from the strong force upwards has been elusive. It is not clear how binding energy arises, or why the neutrons are necessary in the nucleus at all. Nor has it been possible to explain, from first principles of the strong force, why any one nuclide is stable, unstable, or non-existent. Approach – Design methods were used to develop a conceptual mechanics for the bonding arrangements between nucleons. This was based on the covert structures for the proton and neutron as defined by the Cordus theory, a type of non-local hidden-variable design with discrete fields. Findings – Nuclear bonding arises from the synchronous interaction between the discrete fields of the proton and neutron. This results in not one but multiple types of bond, cis- and transphasic, and assembly of chains and bridges of nucleons into a nuclear polymer. The synchronous interaction constrains the relative orientation of nucleons, hence the nuclear polymer takes only certain spatial layouts. The stability of nuclides is entirely predicted by morphology of the nuclear polymer and the cis/transphasic nature of the bonds. The theory successfully explains the qualitative stability characteristics of all hydrogen and helium nuclides. Originality – Novel contributions include: the concept of a nuclear polymer and its mechanics; an explanation of the stability, instability, or non-existence of nuclides starting from the strong/synchronous force; explanation of the role of the neutron in the nucleus. The theory opens a new field of mechanics by which nucleon interactions may be understood.

 

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Variable decay rates of nuclides

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:

http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0077

This work makes the novel contribution of proposing a detailed mechanism for neutrino-species induced decay, broadly consistent with the empirical evidence.

Dirk Pons

New Zealand, 14 Feb 2015

 

You may also be interested in related sites talking about variable decay rates:

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/commentary-on-variable-radioactive-decay-rates/

See also the references in our paper for a summary of the journal literature.

 

UPDATE (20 April 2015): This paper has been published as DOI: 10.5539/apr.v7n3p18 and is available open access here http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/46281/25558

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Mnemonic for the beta decays and electron capture

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!

References

  1. 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

 

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Unified decay equation for individual nucleons

The original Cordus conjecture [1] 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 [2]. 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

 

with

n             neutron

p             proton

e             electron

e             antielectron

v              neutrino

v              antineutrino

y              photon

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

References

  1. 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 .
  2. 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

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Asymmetrical genesis

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 [1]. 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 [2].

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 [3]. 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.

Summary

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 [4]. 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 [5]. Neutrons are formed by electron capture or beta plus decay, for which a Cordus explanation is available [3]. 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 [6], and the structure of the atomic nucleus [7]. The same theory also explains the stability trends and drip lines in the table of nuclides (H-Ne) [8]. This is much more than other theories, and shows the extent to which the Cordus theory is able to radically reconceptualise the genesis process.

Production process for the conversion of an antielectron into a proton.

 

Implications

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

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  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., Pair production explained by a NLHV design Vixra, 2014. 1404.0051: p. 1-17. DOI: http://vixra.org/abs/1404.0051.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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

 

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment